From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Aug 20, 2019
No. 18-3438 (8th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-3438

08-20-2019

United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Keenan Jewon Lewis Defendant - Appellant


Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport Submitted: August 20, 2019 [Unpublished] Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

Keenan Lewis appeals after he pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm offense, and the district court sentenced him to a total of 150 months in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in applying a Guidelines enhancement and in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. In a pro se Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter, Lewis argues that United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), holding that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, invalidated his conviction on the firearm offense.

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in its application of the Guidelines. See United States v. Davenport, 910 F.3d 1076, 1081-83 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review; explaining that application of sentencing enhancements must be supported by preponderance of evidence); United States v. Jensen, 834 F.3d 895, 901 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction will be reversed only if it is so clearly erroneous as to be without foundation). We further conclude that Lewis has failed to show that he benefits from Davis, as we have previously held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the "force clause" of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). See Diaz v. United States, 863 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2017).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.


Summaries of

United States v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Aug 20, 2019
No. 18-3438 (8th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019)
Case details for

United States v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Keenan Jewon Lewis…

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Date published: Aug 20, 2019

Citations

No. 18-3438 (8th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019)

Citing Cases

United States v. Spencer

Because Davis's finding of unconstitutional vagueness is limited to convictions under the statute's residual…

United States v. Graham

Simply put, a motion for consideration is not “a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.” Broadway v.…