United States v. Travis Ryan Raymond ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-2643
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Travis Ryan Raymond
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
    ____________
    Submitted: February 9, 2015
    Filed: February 19, 2015
    [Published]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Travis Raymond was stopped by police officers who determined that the
    vehicle in which Raymond was traveling was stolen. The officers arrested Raymond
    and searched the car. During the search, they found a handgun underneath the
    driver’s seat. The officers also found a case that contained methamphetamine and
    drug paraphernalia. Raymond was charged with possession of methamphetamine
    with intent to distribute, 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), and illegal possession of a firearm,
    
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1). He was designated an armed career criminal, 
    id.
     § 924(e)(1),
    because he has at least three previous convictions for a violent felony. Raymond
    pleaded guilty, and the district court1 sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment, the
    statutory minimum. He reserved his right to appeal his designation as an armed
    career criminal.
    On appeal, Raymond argues only that possession of a handgun is not a violent
    felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). But he misunderstands
    § 924(e)(1). That statute says
    In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has
    three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug
    offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another,
    such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than
    fifteen years . . . .
    
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1). It does not matter whether Raymond’s current conviction for
    illegal possession of a handgun is a “violent felony”; that conviction under
    § 922(g)(1) triggers the 15-year sentence if he has three previous convictions that are
    violent felonies or serious drug offenses. The district court concluded that
    Raymond’s previous Minnesota convictions—for fleeing police in a motor vehicle,
    third-degree burglary, second-degree aggravated robbery, and simple robbery—are
    violent felonies, and thus imposed the 15-year sentence. Raymond does not challenge
    that conclusion.
    Moreover, a challenge to the district court’s conclusion regarding Raymond’s
    previous convictions would fail: We previously have determined that convictions
    1
    The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    under the Minnesota statutes that Raymond violated are violent felonies under
    § 924(e). See United States v. Pate, 
    754 F.3d 550
    , 555–56 (8th Cir. 2014) (fleeing
    police in a motor vehicle); United States v. Constantine, 
    674 F.3d 985
    , 990 (8th Cir.
    2012) (third-degree burglary); United States v. Rucker, 545 F. App’x 567, 572–73
    (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2013) (aggravated robbery); United States v. Johnson, 526 F. App’x
    708, 711 (8th Cir. July 31, 2013) (simple robbery), cert. granted on other grounds,
    
    134 S. Ct. 1871
     (2014). Raymond thus is an armed career criminal, and application
    of the 15-year statutory minimum sentence was correct.
    Raymond suggests we should reserve review of his case pending the outcome
    of Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide
    whether possession of a sawed-off shotgun is a “violent felony” under the ACCA.2
    An administrative panel of this court rejected Raymond’s earlier request to stay the
    briefing deadline. And Raymond did not possess a sawed-off shotgun, nor does he
    have a previous conviction for possessing any gun, so the outcome in Johnson will
    make no difference to his sentence or his appeal.
    We thus affirm the judgment of the district court and uphold Raymond’s
    15-year sentence.
    ______________________________
    2
    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Johnson on November 5, 2014.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-2643

Judges: Gruender, Kelly, Per Curiam, Shepherd

Filed Date: 2/19/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024