Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02950/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02950-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lester D. Erby
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. 05-2950

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Lester D. Erby, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

 Filed: May 25, 2006 (corrected May 30, 2006)

 ___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lester D. Erby appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm transported in interstate commerce after he had

been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The

district court, declining to follow the offense-level stipulation in Erby’s plea

agreement, sentenced him to 40 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.

Erby’s counsel now moves to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

Appellate Case: 05-2950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2006 Entry ID: 2048819
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in declining to

follow the plea agreement, and that the 40-month sentence was unreasonable.

In Erby’s written plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a base offense level

of 14, but agreed that the estimate did not bind the court and that the Guidelines range

was only advisory. The district court, however, determined a base offense level of 20

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4) (committing instant offense after one felony

conviction for crime of violence), because Erby had a 1999 Missouri conviction for

tampering with a witness. 

We find that the district court properly assessed a base offense level of 20.

Because the plea agreement was not binding on the court, the court was required to

independently evaluate the evidence when determining the sentence. See United

States v. DeWitt, 366 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 2004). Further, the district court

properly found Erby’s prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence. According

to the PSR (which he did not dispute) the underlying information recited that he had

threatened to harm the victim’s grandparents See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 n.1 (“crime of

violence” has same meaning as in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) (offense

is crime of violence if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use

of physical force against the person of another); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.270.1(1) (2000

& Supp. 2005) (person tampers with witness if he induces witness by threatening or

causing harm to any person); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A) (district court may accept

any undisputed portion of PSR as finding of fact); United States v. McCall, 439 F.3d

967, 974 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (when statute punishes both violent and non-violent

conduct, courts may look to charging document; unobjected-to PSR description of

charging document may be relied on).

We also find that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 258-62 (2005) (district courts must consult Guidelines and take them into

account when sentencing along with other § 3553(a) factors; § 3553(a) factors guide

Appellate Case: 05-2950 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2006 Entry ID: 2048819
-3-

inquiry as appellate courts review sentences to determine whether they are

reasonable); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence

within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut such

presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). 

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues suitable for appeal. Accordingly,

we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2950 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2006 Entry ID: 2048819