United States v. Anthony Smith

10-1266Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJan 31, 2011

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-2592
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Maurice Walls, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: January 18, 2011
Filed: January 31, 2011
___________
Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Maurice Walls appeals the prison sentence the district court imposed after he1
pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). The district court determined he was an armed career criminal, see 18
U.S.C. § 924(e); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4, and imposed the statutory minimum prison term
of 180 months. In a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel
asks to withdraw and argues that 3 criminal history points should not have been
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern1
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

assessed for prior convictions for which there was no evidence that Walls had been
represented by counsel or had waived counsel.
We find this argument unavailing because subtracting 3 criminal history points
from Walls’s total of 18 would not have affected his sentence. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5 Pt.
A (table) (Category VI criminal history for 13 or more criminal history points).
Further, having properly determined that Walls was an armed career criminal, the
district court had no discretion to sentence him below the statutory minimum. See
United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority to
depart from statutory minimum is in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only
when government moves for departure based on substantial assistance or defendant
qualifies for safety-valve relief).
After reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we
find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we allow counsel to withdraw, and we
affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.