Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01392/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01392-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley F. Moody
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1392

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Stanley F. Moody, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2007

Filed: April 11, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stanley F. Moody pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). Finding that Moody was an armed

career criminal, the district court1

 sentenced him to the statutory mandatory minimum

of 15 years in prison, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Moody’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court

erred in assessing criminal history points for a robbery sentence that Moody had

completed more than fifteen years before committing the instant offense, and that the

Appellate Case: 06-1392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2007 Entry ID: 3297572
-2-

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. In a pro

se supplemental brief, Moody joins in these arguments and raises numerous others.

The double-jeopardy and criminal-history arguments fail: the ACCA does not

violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, see United States v. Conner, 886 F.2d 984, 985

(8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), and any error in assessing criminal history points was

harmless as Moody received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, see United

States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 n.1 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) (when district court

correctly imposes statutory mandatory minimum sentence, any error in Guidelines

calculations is harmless), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 196 (2005).

We also reject seriatim the other arguments that Moody raises in his pro se

supplemental brief, which we review only for plain error because they are raised for

the first time on appeal. See United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir.

2003) (issues not raised before district court are reviewed for plain error).

Specifically, Moody’s prior convictions clearly qualified him for armed-careercriminal status; the district court used the version of the Guidelines that was in effect

when Moody committed the instant offense, rather than a later version as he asserts;

application of the ACCA does not depend on whether a felon-in-possession offense

is itself considered to be a violent felony, but on whether the offender has the requisite

violent felonies or serious drug offenses; and Moody’s arguments regarding equal

protection, due process, and the Eighth Amendment are unavailing, see United States

v. Harris, 324 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment); United States v.

Woodall, 120 F.3d 880, 882 (8th Cir. 1997) (equal protection); United States v. Bates,

77 F.3d 1101, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 1996) (due process).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

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

counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1392 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2007 Entry ID: 3297572