Filed: Nov. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1159 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Thomas Gregory Anderson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: November 5, 2019 Filed: November 8, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. After a seven-day trial, a jury found Thomas Anderson,
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1159 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Thomas Gregory Anderson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: November 5, 2019 Filed: November 8, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. After a seven-day trial, a jury found Thomas Anderson, J..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1159
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Thomas Gregory Anderson, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: November 5, 2019
Filed: November 8, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After a seven-day trial, a jury found Thomas Anderson, Jr., guilty of conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii) and 846, and
conspiracy to launder the marijuana-trafficking proceeds, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1956(a)(1) and 1956(h). The district court1 sentenced him to 180 months in prison
and five years of supervised release. Anderson appeals, challenging the denial of his
pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment based on conflicts of interest and alleged
extortion on the part of his initial defense attorneys, and arguing that the government
engaged in misconduct with regard to its alleged warrantless surveillance and failure
to produce exculpatory evidence. Anderson also argues that the entire United States
Attorney’s Office should have been disqualified. Because our review of the record
convinces us that the district court thoroughly considered and properly rejected
Anderson’s motions to dismiss the indictment after evidentiary hearings, and because
Anderson’s remaining arguments are conclusory, belated, and do not warrant relief,
we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny as moot Anderson’s
pending motion for production of records.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-