United States v. Timothy Reed, No. 17-3436 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3436 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Timothy S. Reed lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: January 14, 2019 Filed: January 25, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Reed directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. supplemental brief submitted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggests that the district court improperly applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) to calculate Reed’s advisory Guidelines range. We conclude that the district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts when it determined that Reed possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense, and that the court’s application of section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was therefore proper. See United States v. Brooks, 648 F.3d 626, 629 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (providing standard of review). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -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.
