Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02287/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02287-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keithen Deone McCorkle
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2287

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Keithen Deone McCorkle, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 19, 2006

Filed: September 27, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Keithen McCorkle pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

 calculated an advisory

Guidelines imprisonment range of 57-71 months, and sentenced McCorkle to 64

months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting the sentence was

an abuse of discretion. In a pro se supplemental brief, McCorkle argues that using his

prior drug conviction to give him both a greater base offense level and an increased

Appellate Case: 05-2287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2006 Entry ID: 2093791
-2-

criminal history score was improper double counting, and that his prior convictions

and Guidelines enhancements had to be charged in the indictment and presented to a

jury.

We reject these pro se arguments. The district court did not engage in

“double-counting” in its use of McCorkle’s prior drug conviction. See U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1, comment. n.12 (prior felony conviction resulting in increased base offense

level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), (a)(4)(B), or (a)(6) is also

counted for purposes of determining criminal history points pursuant to Chapter

Four); United States v. Rohwedder, 243 F.3d 423, 426-27 (8th Cir. 2001) (where

application note makes clear that Sentencing Commission intended two enhancements

to apply to particular conduct, it is not impermissible double counting). The

Guidelines enhancements and prior convictions did not need to be charged in the

indictment or proved to a jury. See United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th

Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1399 (2006); United States v. Thomas, 398 F.3d

1058, 1063-64 (8th Cir. 2005).

We further conclude that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion or

unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate

courts must review sentences for unreasonableness). The district court considered

appropriate factors in selecting the sentence, which was within the undisputed

Guidelines range, and we find nothing in the record to suggest McCorkle could rebut

the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148,

1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if

district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant

weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only

appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in weighing those factors);

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

range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of

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

Appellate Case: 05-2287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2006 Entry ID: 2093791
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny McCorkle’s motion for appointment of new

counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2287 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2006 Entry ID: 2093791