United States v. Jessica Harcrow
United States v. Jessica Harcrow
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 22-1612 ___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Jessica Harcrow,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________
Submitted: June 22, 2022 Filed: July 6, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Jessica Harcrow appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after she pleaded guilty to drug and money laundering offenses. Her counsel has moved to
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in applying an enhancement under the sentencing guidelines for committing the drug offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood.
Upon careful review, see United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement. The record supported the court’s findings that Harcrow had admitted to investigators that selling drugs was her primary source of income, and that she had accumulated at least $26,000 over the course of a year. The large quantities of drugs that she admitted distributing supported a reasonable inference that the $26,000 was a small percentage of the profits that she would have made over the course of a year. See USSG §§ 2D1.1(b)(16)(E), comment. (n.20); 4B1.3 comment. (n.2); United States v. Ford, 987 F.3d 1210, 1215 (8th Cir. 2021); United States v. Denson, 967 F.3d 699, 707 (8th Cir. 2020); United States v. Berry, 930 F.3d 997, 999 (8th Cir. 2019).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished