UNITED STATES v. ANDREWS (2019)

[Unpublished]

A jury convicted William Andrews of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, Andrews’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and questions the district court’s ¹ decision to admit evidence that Andrews had previously been convicted of a felony involving a firearm. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. See United States v. Rembert, 851 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a court’s admission of prior-bad-act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) will be reversed “only when such evidence clearly ha[d] no bearing on the issues in the case and was introduced solely to prove the defendant’s propensity to commit criminal acts” (citation omitted)). Evidence that Andrews had previously possessed a gun was relevant to show that he knowingly possessed the gun recovered in this case. See United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482, 487 (8th Cir. 2011). And the court’s limiting instruction to the jury helped “diminish[ ] the danger of any unfair prejudice arising from [its] admission.” Id. at 488 (citation omitted).

We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

PER CURIAM.