Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03454/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03454-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly Flannery
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3454

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kelly Flannery, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 2, 2004

Filed: July 27, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kelly Flannery appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to aiding and abetting others in willfully making a threat and maliciously

conveying false information, over the telephone, about alleged attempts to blow up

a courthouse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(e) and 2. At sentencing, the district

court determined that Flannery was a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and

sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. We

affirm. 

Appellate Case: 03-3454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792494 
-2-

Flannery argues for the first time that he was improperly classified as a career

offender because the instant offense did not qualify as a “crime of violence.” We find

that the court did not plainly err in classifying the instant offense--aiding and abetting

others in threatening to blow up the courthouse--as a crime of violence. See U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.2(a) (defining crime of violence); United States v. Santos, 131 F.3d 16, 21 (1st

Cir. 1997); cf. United States v. Left Hand Bull, 901 F.2d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1990)

(where defendant mailed threatening letter, he committed crime of violence under

career-offender provisions, even if he lacked ability to act contemporaneously upon

his threat). Flannery also argues he should have received an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. We reject this contention, because in light of the evidence

presented at sentencing, the court did not clearly err in finding that Flannery

minimized his role in the offense to the probation officer who interviewed him. See

United States v. Alaniz, 148 F.3d 929, 937 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction because entry of guilty plea alone did not entitle defendant

to reduction, and he continued to deny his involvement in offense after there was

substantial evidence of his participation).

We do not reach Flannery’s remaining arguments regarding his criminal history

points and an aggravating-role enhancement, because these issues are moot in light

of Flannery’s career-offender status. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). Accordingly, we

affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2004 Entry ID: 1792494