United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4238
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Zibo Li
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: September 29, 2017
Filed: October 4, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Zibo Li was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to traffic in unauthorized
access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and two counts of possessing
unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3), (c)(1)(A)(i).
Counsel appeals in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the sentence
imposed by the district court.1 Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
The evidence at trial included the testimony of cooperating witnesses who
participated at various levels in a scheme that involved selling fraudulently obtained
cellular telephones for a profit. Testimony established that law enforcement officials
searched Li’s home and seized unauthorized access devices and other incriminating
evidence after intercepting boxes containing fraudulently obtained cellular telephones
sent by Li from Minnesota bound for Hong Kong. This evidence was sufficient to
support the jury verdict, notwithstanding Li’s denial of knowledge of the fraudulent
means used by others to obtain the cellular telephones. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3)
(possession of unauthorized access devices); United States v. Jenkins-Watts, 574 F.3d
950, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review and required proof for conspiracy
conviction). Li’s due process rights were not violated by the district court’s
application of a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in sentence enhancements.
See United States v. Mustafa, 695 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
This court finds no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record in
accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
1
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.
-2-