United States of America v. Darrell L. Smith

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2883
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Darrell L. Smith
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: February 28, 2025
Filed: March 5, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After a jury found Darrell Smith guilty of drug and firearm offenses, he
received a 240-month prison sentence. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846;
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). An Anders brief suggests that the district court1 should
1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
have suppressed evidence found in a search of his house and excluded text messages
from his former girlfriend. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In
addition to challenging the basis of the search, a pro se supplemental filing raises the
failure to independently test the drugs, the lack of a representative jury, and the
insufficiency of the evidence as other issues for us to consider.
None merits relief. Corroborated tips from known sources provided probable
cause for the warrant, see United States v. Knutson, 967 F.3d 754, 758–59 (8th Cir.
2020) (per curiam); the text messages were in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
conspiracy, see United States v. Craig, 94 F.4th 752, 756–57 (8th Cir. 2024) (citing
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)); he waived his argument that he had the right to test the
drugs at an independent laboratory, see United States v. Kelley, 774 F.3d 434, 439
(8th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a)); and the makeup of the jury did not
present a constitutional problem, see United States v. Jones, 687 F.2d 1265, 1269
(8th Cir. 1982). As for sufficiency, the evidence of how the drugs were packaged,
where Smith kept his guns and body armor, and what he did with them, taken
together, made it reasonable to infer that the drugs were for distribution and the guns
and armor were for protection. See United States v. Parish, 606 F.3d 480, 489–90
(8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724, 727–28 (8th Cir. 2009).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel
permission to withdraw.
_____________________________
Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Missouri.

-- 2 of 2 --