United States v. Dmarquise Magsby, No. 21-2426 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in applying an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the handgun in connection with another felony, namely possession of ecstasy with intent to deliver. [ December 03, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2426 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Dmarquise Leuntaye Magsby, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: December 1, 2021 Filed: December 6, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dmarquise Magsby appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief argues that the district court erred in applying a four-level enhancement to Magsby’s base offense level under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(b) based on its finding that Magsby possessed a firearm in connection with another offense, namely, possession of ecstasy with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(1). We conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement; the court’s finding that Magsby had the intent to deliver was supported by the evidence. See USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686, 691-92 (Iowa 1996). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, 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.
