Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03205/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles M. Gilmore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 court1

 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

Appellate Case: 03-3205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2004 Entry ID: 1761532 
-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. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2004 Entry ID: 1761532