United States of America v. Kevin L. Kivett, Sr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-2164
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kevin L. Kivett, Sr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
____________
Submitted: February 2, 2021
Filed: February 16, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Kivett appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled
guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed
1The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the imposition
of a role-in-the-offense sentencing enhancement, Kivett’s designation as a career
offender, and the substantive reasonableness of Kivett’s sentence.
After careful review, we discern no clear error in the district court’s imposition
of the role enhancement. See United States v. Camacho, 555 F.3d 695, 705-06 (8th
Cir. 2009) (discussing application of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1). We decline to address
Kivett’s challenge to his career-offender status, as his United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) range would have been the same without the
career-offender designation, and we conclude any error was harmless. See United v.
Sykes, 854 F.3d 457, 462 (8th Cir. 2017) (reasoning that any error was harmless
where it did not change the Guidelines calculation).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard
and discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762
F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting within-Guidelines sentence is presumed
reasonable). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant
counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --