United States of America v. Kammeron Davis

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3556
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kammeron Davis
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: September 15, 2025
Filed: September 18, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kammeron Davis appeals the judgment entered by the district court1 after a
jury found him guilty of robbery and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for
leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
(1967), discussing whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and
whether the district court erred in admitting Davis’s prior robbery conviction and in
denying his related motion for a mistrial. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that Davis’s prior robbery
conviction was admissible. See United States v. Stenger, 605 F.3d 492, 499 (8th Cir.
2010) (evidence of other criminal acts is admissible if it is relevant to material issue,
similar in kind and close in time to crime charged, proven by preponderance of
evidence, and potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative
value). Further, the district court did not err in denying his related request for a
mistrial. See United States v. Arias, 936 F.3d 793, 798 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of
review). Finally, this court concludes that there was sufficient evidence to support
the jury verdict. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008)
(standard of review).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --