United States v. Jordan Minette, No. 08-3745 (8th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Anders case. No error in denying defendant's motion to suppress.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3745 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jordan E. Minette, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 16, 2009 Filed: December 17, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After the district court1 denied his motion to suppress, Jordan E. Minette conditionally pleaded guilty to transporting child pornography in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 2252; he reserved the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. The court sentenced Minette to 108 months in prison and 20 years of supervised release, and imposed a $15,000 fine. On appeal, his counsel has 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel argues that the district court erred in denying the suppression motion, but we conclude that the court s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and its legal conclusion was correct. See United States v. Stevens, 530 F.3d 714, 717 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 654 (2008). We have carefully reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.