United States v. Anton Cro, No. 11-2055 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not err in concluding the Fair Sentencing Act did not apply retroactively to him and did not commit procedural error or abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2055 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Anton Nelson Cross, also known as * Ben, also known as Maurice Elliot, * [UNPUBLISHED] also known as Scott Livingston, also * known as Vernon Livingston, also * known as Ricky Moody, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: October 20, 2011 Filed: October 26, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Anton Cross appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the District Court (1) erred 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. in determining that the Fair Sentencing Act did not apply retroactively to Cross and (2) abused its discretion in sentencing him. As to the District Court s determination regarding the applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act, we find no error in light of this Court s recent decision in United States v. Sidney, 648 F.3d 904, 910 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively to defendants whose criminal conduct occurred before its enactment even if those defendants were sentenced after its enactment). As to the court s imposition of sentence, we find no significant procedural error or abuse of discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that this Court, in reviewing a sentence on appeal, first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred and then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard; if the sentence is within the Guidelines range, we may apply a presumption of reasonableness). Finally, upon independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
