Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03217/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03217-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Court for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3217

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Gregory Anderson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Gregory Anderson of robbing three banks in the Twin Cities.

At a post-Booker resentencing, the district court*

 sentenced Anderson at the low end

of the advisory guidelines range to 210 months in prison. 

On appeal, Anderson first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

his convictions, asserting the evidence is unreliable eyewitness testimony. Viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a reasonable jury

Appellate Case: 05-3217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022553
-2-

could have found Anderson guilty of the three robberies beyond a reasonable doubt.

See United States v. Hollins, 432 F.3d 809, 811 (8th Cir. 2005). The surveillance tape

of each bank robbery shows the same man, identified as Anderson, robbing each of

the three banks. A police detective recognized the person in the tape as Anderson

from earlier experiences with him. Further, each of the three victim tellers positively

identified Anderson as the person who robbed them. 

Anderson also challenges his sentence. Anderson argues the jury, not the court,

should have decided whether his earlier convictions qualified as crimes of violence

for sentencing purposes. As Anderson acknowledges, this argument is contrary to our

precedents. See United States v. Carrillo-Beltran, 424 F.3d 845, 848 (8th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Wilson, 406 F.3d 1074, 1075 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005). Anderson asserts these cases are

wrongly decided, but one panel of this court cannot overturn the decisions of other

panels. See United States v. Hutman, 339 F.3d 773, 777 (8th Cir. 2003). Anderson

also contends his sentence is unreasonable. We disagree. Because Anderson’s

sentence is within the advisory guidelines range, we presume it is reasonable. United

States v. Davidson, No. 05-2380, 2006 WL 300532, at *3 (8th Cir. Feb. 9, 2006). 

Anderson has failed to overcome the presumption. See id. The district court

considered all of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before concluding a sentence of

210 months was appropriate. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree the

sentence is reasonable given the severity of the robbery offenses and Anderson’s

lengthy criminal history. See Marcussen, 403 F.3d at 985. 

We thus affirm the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022553