The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-1449•United States v. Otho Leonard Rater
03-1449Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitApr 30, 2004
1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-3205
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Western
* District of Missouri.
Charles M. Gilmore, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 23, 2004
Filed: April 28, 2004
___________
Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Gilmore appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he
pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm having been convicted of a felony robbery
offense and a misdemeanor domestic-violence crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), (9) and 924(a)(2), and making a false written statement in connection
with the acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2).
The district court sentenced Gilmore to 77 months imprisonment and 3 years
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
supervised release on both counts, to be served concurrently. Gilmore’s counsel has
filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the district court erred by finding that the shotgun Gilmore possessed
was stolen, and thereby enhancing his sentence 2 levels under U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(4).
The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gilmore stole the
shotgun, based upon the testimony presented at sentencing. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(4); United States v. Sarabia-Martinez, 276 F.3d 447, 450 (8th Cir. 2002)
(sentencing judge’s determination of witness credibility is virtually unreviewable on
appeal); United States v. Martinez, 339 F.3d 759, 761 (8th Cir. 2003) (clear-error
review).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.