The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-1087•United States of America v. James Vigil, also known as Joker
23-1087Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMay 30, 2025
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2560
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Vigil, also known as Joker
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
____________
Submitted: April 29, 2025
Filed: May 2, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Vigil appeals after a jury found him guilty of unlawful possession of a
firearm as a prohibited person, and the district court1 sentenced him to 120 months
1The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
in prison. His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the verdict, and arguing that the court erred in calculating the
Guidelines range. Vigil has filed a pro se brief raising similar challenges.
Upon careful review, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support
Vigil’s conviction. See United States v. Cornelison, 717 F.3d 623, 626 (8th Cir.
2013) (standard of review); United States v. Smart, 501 F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir.
2007); United States v. Oleson, 310 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir. 2002). We also
conclude the district court did not commit reversible error with respect to calculating
the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Peterson, 455 F.3d 834, 837
(8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Finally, we conclude that Vigil’s additional
arguments raised in his pro se brief do not warrant vacating his conviction or
sentence.
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.