Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01578/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellee
Charles Weissinger
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Charles Weissinger, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 1, 2008

Filed: February 5, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Charles Weissinger pleaded guilty to

possessing a firearm after having three previous felony convictions for burglary, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The district court1

 sentenced

Weissinger at the top of his advisory Guidelines range to 235 months in prison, plus

3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Weissinger’s counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Appellate Case: 07-1578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2008 Entry ID: 3399064
-2-

Weissinger has moved for new counsel. For the reasons discussed below, we grant

counsel’s motion, deny Weissinger’s motion, and affirm. 

Counsel argues that Weissinger’s prior burglary convictions should not be

considered violent felonies within the meaning of section 924(e). Reviewing for plain

error, see United States v. Patterson, 481 F.3d 1029, 1034 (8th Cir. 2007) (failure to

raise issue at sentencing results in plain-error review on appeal), we conclude that the

district court did not plainly err in enhancing Weissinger’s sentence based on his prior

burglary convictions, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (definition of “violent felony”

includes burglary); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170 (person commits crime of burglary in

second degree when he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully

in building or inhabitable structure for purpose of committing crime therein); Taylor

v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990) (concluding that person has been convicted

of burglary for purposes of § 924(e) enhancement if he is convicted of any crime,

regardless of exact definition or label, having basic elements of unlawful or

unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, building or structure, with intent to commit

crime).

Counsel also argues that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court

relied too heavily on Weissinger’s criminal history. Upon careful review, we

conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Long Soldier, 431

F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review).

After carefully reviewing the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Weissinger’s motion

for new counsel, and affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2008 Entry ID: 3399064