Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02422/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Crump
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2422

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Michael Crump, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2007

Filed: May 18, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal of his 180-month prison sentence for being a felon

in possession of a firearm, Michael Crump (Crump) challenges on constitutional

grounds the district court’s1

 finding that he had three sentence-enhancing prior

convictions, and he challenges the district court’s order that his sentence run

consecutively to his state sentence for a parole violation.

Appellate Case: 06-2422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2007 Entry ID: 3310935
-2-

Because Crump did not assert his constitutional argument in the district court,

we review the issue for plain error only. See United States v. Conelly, 451 F.3d 942,

944 (8th Cir. 2006). We hold that no error--much less plain error-- occurred because

the district court had authority to find that Crump had the prior convictions at issue.

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005) (any fact other than prior

conviction which is necessary to support sentence exceeding maximum authorized by

facts established by guilty plea or jury verdict must be admitted by defendant or

proved to jury beyond reasonable doubt); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 244-46 (1998) (recidivism, as basis for increasing sentence, need not be

charged in indictment and may be subsequently decided by court at sentencing);

United States v. Strong, 415 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2005) (construing Booker as

reaffirming holding in Almendarez-Torres), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1121 (2006); see

also United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (under plain-error

standard, there must be (1) error, which is (2) plain and (3) affects substantial rights,

and (4) error must seriously affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005).

We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering

Crump’s federal sentence to run consecutively to his undischarged state sentence

where the court imposed the consecutive sentence upon consideration of the

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (sentence may be

imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to undischarged

term of imprisonment to achieve reasonable punishment for instant offense); United

States v. Shafer, 438 F.3d 1225, 1227 (8th Cir. 2006) (imposition of consecutive

sentence is reviewed under reasonableness standard, which is akin to abuse-ofdiscretion standard); United States v. Mathis, 451 F.3d 939, 941-42 (8th Cir. 2006)

(describing court’s discretion under § 5G1.3(c) as “wide”; court did not abuse its

discretion in applying § 3553 factors and imposing consecutive sentence).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2007 Entry ID: 3310935