United States v. Anthony Kiefer, No. 11-1112 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not err in imposing a firearm enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2B3.1(b)(2)(C); sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1112 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Anthony D. Kiefer, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 1, 2011 Filed: June 7, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After Anthony D. Kiefer pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), the district court1 sentenced him to 78 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court properly applied a firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), and whether the sentence was reasonable. Kiefer has moved for appointment of new counsel on appeal. 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Evidence submitted at the sentencing hearing shows that Kiefer fled the bank in a car and--after a brief chase--was apprehended by the police, who discovered a firearm next to the stolen currency in his car. Thus, we conclude that the district court properly applied the firearm enhancement, see United States v. Daniels, 625 F.3d 529, 534 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1706 (2011), because Kiefer possessed the gun while fleeing the scene of his crime, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) (relevant conduct under Guidelines includes all of defendant s acts or omissions that occurred in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for offense of conviction); § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (5-level increase applies if firearm was brandished or possessed). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable on appeal). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, Kiefer s motion for new counsel is denied, and the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
