United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2413
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jerry Michael Conley
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: January 5, 2023
Filed: January 10, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jerry Conley appeals after he conditionally pleaded guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm. He challenges the district court’s1 denial of his motion to
1
The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
suppress evidence. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Conley’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Guzman, 926 F.3d 991, 997 (8th
Cir. 2019). The officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by checking on Conley
and the other occupant of the vehicle and asking for their identification. See Hiibel
v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177, 185 (2004); United States v. Halter, 988
F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir. 2021). Once the officer discovered that neither of the
occupants of the vehicle had a valid driver’s license and that the vehicle was stolen,
he had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to seize Conley and ultimately arrest
him. See Young v. United States, 344 F.2d 1006, 1008 (8th Cir. 1965). The search
of Conley’s person was justified as incident to his arrest, see United States v. Brewer,
624 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir. 2010); the search of the vehicle was justified because the
officer saw the firearm in plain view, see United States v. Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 693
(8th Cir. 2019); the interviews of Conley were Mirandized; and Conley did not
present any evidence to demonstrate that his statements were involuntary, see United
States v. Syslo, 303 F.3d 860, 866 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
We have also 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’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
______________________________
District of Missouri.
-2-