United States v. Kristopher Mitchell, No. 21-1703 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1703 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kristopher Barnard Mitchell, also known as Christopher Mitchell lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________ Submitted: November 2, 2021 Filed: November 5, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kristopher Mitchell appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Mitchell questions whether the district court properly imposed a 4-level enhancement for possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Mitchell did not raise this challenge below, however, and we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in applying the enhancement. See United States v. Webster, 820 F.3d 944, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (standard of review); see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (increase by 4 levels if defendant used or possessed firearm in connection with another felony offense) & cmt. n.14(C) (defining “another felony offense”). Further, 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 leave to withdraw2 and affirm. ______________________________ 2 We remind counsel, however, that Anders briefing must be done as an advocate for the appellant, and the brief must refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Penson, 488 U.S. at 80 (Anders brief must refer to anything in record that might arguably support appeal); Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268 (8th Cir. 1989) (Anders briefing must be done as advocate). -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.
