United States v. Verne Moore, No. 13-2198 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. District court did not make any clearly erroneous factual findings and properly denied Moore's motion to suppress. The within-Guidelines-range sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2198 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Verne E. Moore lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 3, 2013 Filed: December 9, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Verne Moore appeals after he pled guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, and the district court1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the district court (1) made a clearly erroneous factual finding, resulting in an improper denial of Moore s motion to suppress; and (2) inadequately discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors at sentencing, resulting in an unreasonable sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not make any clearly erroneous factual findings and properly denied Moore s motion to suppress. See United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court s factual findings are reviewed for clear error). We further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (sentencing decision is reviewed under abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Godsey, 690 F.3d 906, 912 (8th Cir. 2012) (mechanical recitation of § 3553(a) factors at sentencing is not required; rather it simply must be clear from record that district court actually considered § 3553(a) factors in determining sentence). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and 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.
