United States v. Carl Beck , 11 F. App'x 700 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-2694
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    *
    v.                                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Carl A. Beck,                           * Eastern District of Missouri.
    *
    Appellant.                 *   [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted: June 7, 2001
    Filed: June 14, 2001
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After the district court1 denied his motion to suppress, Carl A. Beck
    conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g); he reserved the right to appeal the denial of the suppression
    motion. The court sentenced Beck to 180 months of imprisonment and 5 years of
    supervised release. On appeal, counsel has briefed the suppression issue and moved
    1
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Honorable Lawrence O. Davis, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    to withdraw under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and Beck has not filed
    a pro se supplemental brief.
    We conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly
    erroneous, and its legal conclusion was correct. See United States v. Tavares, 
    223 F.3d 911
    , 914 (8th Cir. 2000). (standard of review). The smell of burnt marijuana
    emanating from Beck’s car gave the police probable cause to search the entire vehicle
    for drugs, see United States v. Neumann, 
    183 F.3d 753
    , 756 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    528 U.S. 981
     (1999), and they found the gun under Beck’s seat. Counsel essentially
    challenges the court’s credibility determinations, which are virtually unreviewable on
    appeal. See United States v. Wicker, 
    80 F.3d 263
    , 268 (8th Cir. 1996).
    Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently
    pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), we affirm the judgment of the
    district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-