United States v. Joel Geyer, Sr. ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3674
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the
    * Southern District of Iowa.
    Joel Edward Geyer, Sr., also known as *
    Joel Geyer,                           * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 22, 2008
    Filed: December 2, 2008
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Joel Geyer challenges the prison sentence the district court imposed after he
    pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. At sentencing, the court determined that
    Geyer was a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, because he had prior felony
    convictions for bank robbery and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI).
    On appeal, Geyer argues that he should not have been classified as a career offender
    because his OWI conviction is not a “crime of violence.”
    While this case was pending on appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued
    its decision in Begay v. United States, 
    128 S. Ct. 1581
    (2008), holding that the crime
    of driving under the influence is not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career
    Criminal Act (ACCA). See 
    id. at 1583,
    1588. Consequently, the district court
    improperly calculated Geyer’s advisory Guidelines range when it determined that his
    prior OWI conviction is a “crime of violence.” See United States v. Williams, 
    537 F.3d 969
    , 971 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court has never recognized distinction between
    “crime of violence” and “violent felony”); United States v. Comstock, 
    531 F.3d 667
    ,
    678-79 (8th Cir. 2008)(rehearing denied) (OWI convictions are not ACCA “violent
    felonies”); see also Gall v. United States, 
    128 S. Ct. 586
    , 594, 596-97 (2007) (as part
    of reasonableness review, appellate court must first ensure that district court
    committed no significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating Guidelines
    range).
    Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3674

Judges: Murphy, Bye, Benton

Filed Date: 12/2/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024