Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01494/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01494-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Donald Hott
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1494

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Patrick Donald Hott, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 4, 2008

 Filed: February 8, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Donald Hott appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to distribution of, and aiding and abetting the

distribution of, in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The court classified him as a career

offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 on the basis of his prior Minnesota convictions for

theft of a motor vehicle and second degree assault, resulting in an advisory Guidelines

range of 262-327 months in prison, but departed downward after granting a U.S.S.G.

Appellate Case: 07-1494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400487
-2-

§ 5K1.1 substantial-assistance motion by the government. For reversal, Hott argues

that the career-offender provision should not have been applied because attempted

theft of a motor vehicle is not a crime of violence, and that this Circuit’s categorical

approach classifying this offense as such in United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747

(8th Cir. 2002), conflicts with the Supreme Court’s holding in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543

U.S. 1 (2004).

Hott’s challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Barbour, 395 F.3d 826 (8th

Cir. 2005), in which this court concluded that Sun Bear remains binding precedent

after Leocal, and only the court sitting en banc may reverse Sun Bear’s holding. See

Barbour, 395 F.3d at 827-28 (Eighth Circuit precedent bound panel to hold vehicletheft conviction constituted crime of violence); Sun Bear, 307 F.3d at 752-53 (holding

categorically that “the theft or attempted theft of an operable vehicle is a crime of

violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2); United States v. Wright, 22 F.3d 787, 788 (8th

Cir. 1994) (panel of this court is bound by prior Eighth Circuit decision unless prior

decision is overruled by this court sitting en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Entry ID: 3400487