United States v. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass, No. 22-1067 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. Pro se claim Congress lacked the power to enact the criminal drug and gun statutes defendant violated rejected based on prior Eighth Circuit case law; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. [ July 15, 2022 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1067 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Lucas Michael McNulty-Snodgrass lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: July 1, 2022 Filed: July 18, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Lucas McNulty-Snodgrass received a 210-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). An Anders brief suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se brief claims that Congress did not have the power to enact the two statutes that Snodgrass violated. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 616–17 (2000). Snodgrass’s constitutional argument is foreclosed by precedent. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 9 (2005); United States v. Nash, 627 F.3d 693, 696–97 (8th Cir. 2010). And the substantive-reasonableness challenge is belied by the record, which establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461– 62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired. -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.
