Filed: Jul. 26, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-1528 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Marcus Garcia Bland, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: July 19, 2002 Filed: July 26, 2002 _ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. After Marcus Garcia Bland was charged with possessing with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of a mixture contai
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-1528 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Marcus Garcia Bland, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: July 19, 2002 Filed: July 26, 2002 _ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. After Marcus Garcia Bland was charged with possessing with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of a mixture contain..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-1528
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the District
v. * of Minnesota.
*
Marcus Garcia Bland, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: July 19, 2002
Filed: July 26, 2002
___________
Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
After Marcus Garcia Bland was charged with possessing with intent to
distribute in excess of 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A), Bland moved to suppress evidence seized
from his residence. The district court* denied the motion, Bland pleaded guilty, and
the district court sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised
release.
*
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.
On appeal, Bland's counsel filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders
v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court improperly denied the
motion to suppress. Bland has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
An appeal of the denied motion to suppress is foreclosed by Bland's
unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Jennings,
12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir.
1994). Also, having independently reviewed the record, we find no nonfrivolous
issues. Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the district court
and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-