United States v. Charles R. Henderson ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2635
    ___________
    United States of America,            *
    *
    Appellee,                *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                             * District Court for the Western
    * District of Missouri
    Charles R. Henderson, also known as *
    Charles E. Black, also known as      *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Charles Henderson,                   *
    *
    Appellant.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 6, 2001
    Filed: November 13, 2001
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Charles R. Henderson appeals from the final judgment entered in the District
    Court1 for the Western District of Missouri after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in
    possession of ammunition, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The
    district court sentenced Henderson to 180 months imprisonment and five years
    supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders
    v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that Henderson should have received a
    1
    The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    lower sentence because he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of
    ammunition, not to being an armed career offender. Henderson has not filed a pro se
    supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the
    district court.
    To the extent Henderson is arguing that his sentence was too harsh, there is no
    jurisdictional basis for review. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a) (grounds for appeal of
    sentence by defendant). Moreover, the district court did not plainly err in sentencing
    him as an armed career criminal, because he did not argue below--nor does he argue
    on appeal--that he is not an armed career criminal, and his prior burglary and
    aggravated-assault convictions (for which he received multi-year prison sentences)
    are qualifying convictions. See 
    id.
     §§ 922(g)(1) (prohibiting felons from possessing
    ammunition or firearms), 924(e)(1) (15-year minimum sentence for person who
    violates § 922(g) and has 3 previous convictions for “violent felony” or serious drug
    offense), 924(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) (“violent felony” means any crime punishable by
    imprisonment exceeding 1 year that has as element use, attempted use, or threatened
    use of physical force against person of another, or is burglary); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a)
    (defendant who is subject to enhanced sentence under § 924(e) is “armed career
    criminal”); DeRoo v. United States, 
    223 F.3d 919
    , 926 (8th Cir. 2000) (reviewing for
    plain error district court’s inclusion of predicate conviction for purposes of Armed
    Career Criminal Act where inmate did not raise argument below).
    We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
    motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2635

Judges: McMillian, Fagg, Arnold

Filed Date: 11/13/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024