Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01569/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby Joe Simms
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1569

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Bobby Joe Simms, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 2, 2007

Filed: April 11, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Joe Simms (Simms) appeals the district court’s1

 sentence of 57 months’

imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The court ordered Simms’s sentence to run concurrently

with a state sentence for drug-trafficking convictions. On appeal, Simms’s counsel

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel in his Anders brief and Simms in a pro se supplemental brief argue the

district court violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by using judge-found facts at

Appellate Case: 05-1569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2007 Entry ID: 3297542
-2-

sentencing, which were neither admitted by Simms nor proven to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt, to support the enhancements to Simms’s base offense level.

We hold there was no Booker error because the district court did not treat the

Guidelines as mandatory. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 311-14 (2005);

United States v. Hines, 472 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (concluding

after Booker judges can make factual findings as long as the United States Sentencing

Guidelines are treated as advisory). 

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2007 Entry ID: 3297542