Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03292/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl O. Thornburgh
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3292

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Carl O. Thornburgh, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2006

Filed: June 16, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Carl O. Thornburgh pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm and to possessing marijuana, the district court*

 concluded he was an armed

career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and imposed the

statutory minimum sentence of 180 months in prison. Thornburgh appeals, and we

affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-3292 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057329
-2-

Based on facts in the presentence report (PSR) to which Thornburgh did not

object, the district court properly concluded all three of his second-degree burglary

convictions in Missouri state court involved the unlawful entry into a building. See

United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2006) (Missouri statute

defining second-degree burglary uses term “inhabitable structure” which is not

limited to buildings, but district court correctly concluded defendant’s earlier

commercial burglary conviction was for entering building based on unobjected-to

facts in PSR). Thornburgh argues the court committed error in classifying two of the

convictions as violent felonies, because they were of commercial buildings and

involved no actual or potential violence. This argument is foreclosed by our cases.

See id.; United States v. Nolan, 397 F.3d 665, 666 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

195 (2005); United States v. Hascall, 76 F.3d 902, 904-06 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519

U.S. 948 (1996). 

Pointing to the decisions of other circuits, Thornburgh urges us to revisit our

decisions holding burglary of a commercial building is categorically a violent felony

or crime of violence. In Bell, however, we reaffirmed our position in the face of

inter-circuit conflict on the issue, see Bell, 445 F.3d at 1088; and further, as a panel

we are not at liberty to revisit earlier panel decisions, see Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d

427, 431 (8th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3292 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057329