Carl E. Brant v. Principal Life and

1The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-4030
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Patrick Jefferson, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 6, 2001
Filed: April 26, 2001
___________
Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Patrick Jefferson was convicted of conspiring to distribute and/or possess with
intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and/or heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(1994). The District Court1 sentenced him to 150 months imprisonment and 8 years
supervised release. On appeal, his counsel raises three issues in a brief filed pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Jefferson raises two issues pro se.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
We reject seriatim the issues raised by Jefferson and his counsel. First, we find
that the evidence was sufficient to support Jefferson’s conviction. See United States
v. Grimaldo, 214 F.3d 967, 975 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 330 (2000) and
121 S. Ct. 784 (2001). Second, the prosecutor adequately articulated a race-neutral
reason for exercising a peremptory strike against an African-American venireperson.
See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-69 (1995) (per curiam). Third, the District
Court did not clearly err in applying an enhancement for possessing a firearm in
connection with the offense. See Brown v. United States, 169 F.3d 531, 532-33 (8th
Cir. 1999). Fourth, Jefferson’s retrial, after a hung jury in his first trial, was not barred
by double jeopardy. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988). Finally,
Jefferson's sentence does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
121 S. Ct. 600 (2000).
We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --