Opinion
No. 20-2262
02-16-2021
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Melissa R. Kivett Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin [Unpublished] Before KELLY, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Melissa Kivett appeals the sentence the district court imposed after she pled guilty to drug offenses. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has a filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court's drug quantity determination, and the imposition of a firearm sentencing enhancement and role-in-the-offense sentencing enhancement. Counsel also challenges the substantive reasonableness of Kivett's sentence.
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. --------
After careful review, we discern no clear error in the district court's drug quantity determination. See United States v. Ault, 446 F.3d 821, 823 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing relevant conduct for purposes of drug quantity determination); United States v. Titlbach, 300 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). Similarly, the district court did not clearly err in assessing the firearm enhancement, see Ault, 446 F.3d at 824 (discussing dangerous-weapon enhancement), or err in imposing the role enhancement, see United States v. Camacho, 555 F.3d 695, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing application of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1).
Finally, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). Further, the district court imposed a sentence within the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("Guidelines") range. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.