From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Taylor

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Dec 11, 2020
No. 20-1580 (8th Cir. Dec. 11, 2020)

Opinion

No. 20-1580

12-11-2020

United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Conrad Fred Taylor, Jr., also known as C.J. Defendant - Appellant


Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central [Unpublished] Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

Conrad Taylor received a 144-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846. In an Anders brief, Taylor's counsel requests permission to withdraw and raises the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction as an issue for our review. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Taylor has also filed two pro se briefs in which he challenges a career-offender enhancement, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the failure to suppress evidence. We affirm.

Taylor is foreclosed from raising the latter two challenges by a broad appeal waiver in the plea agreement that covers "all . . . objections" to his conviction. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Based on prior felony assault and drug convictions, he also qualifies as a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (defining a "career offender" as someone who "has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense"); United States v. Clayborn, 951 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2020) (recognizing that a conviction of possession with intent to deliver under Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d) is a controlled-substance offense); United States v. Quigley, 943 F.3d 390, 393-95 (8th Cir. 2019) (concluding that a conviction for assault with intent to inflict serious injury under Iowa Code § 708.2 qualifies as a crime of violence). Moreover, the district court had reason to deny an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction after Taylor was caught with a controlled substance in jail. See United States v. Byrd, 76 F.3d 194, 197 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that the district court may consider even "unrelated criminal conduct in denying an acceptance[-]of[-]responsibility reduction").

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

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment, grant counsel permission to withdraw, and deny Taylor's pro se motion for appointment of counsel and discovery.


Summaries of

United States v. Taylor

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Dec 11, 2020
No. 20-1580 (8th Cir. Dec. 11, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Conrad Fred Taylor, Jr.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Date published: Dec 11, 2020

Citations

No. 20-1580 (8th Cir. Dec. 11, 2020)

Citing Cases

United States v. Hartford

And it's well-settled that the Court may consider a defendant's misconduct while awaiting disposition of a…