Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03699/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03699-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramon T. Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3699

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Ramon T. Morales, also known as *

Munchies, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006 

 Filed: October 23, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Morales pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and

to possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), (k), and 2. After this court vacated his original sentence and remanded

for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district

court1

 resentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 64 months on the first count and

60 months on the second count, to be followed by concurrent terms of two years of

Appellate Case: 05-3699 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2006 Entry ID: 2102037
-2-

supervised release. On appeal, 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 applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) (4-level enhancement for using or possessing any

firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense). Specifically,

counsel argues that the enhancement is erroneous because it is based on a prior

conviction that was unrelated to the instant offense and the firearms involved. We

reject counsel’s argument and affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions concerning the

application of section 2K2.1(b)(5), and we review the underlying factual findings for

clear error. See United States v. Anderson, 339 F.3d 720, 724 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review). It is undisputed that Morales has a prior conviction for

aggravated discharge of a firearm, and thus the district court properly concluded that

he used “any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense”; we have

expressly held that section 2K2.1(b)(5) applies for other felony offenses that occurred

distinct from the offense of conviction and that “the firearm used in another felony

need not be the same firearm involved in the offense of conviction.” See United

States v. Davis, 360 F.3d 901, 902-04 (8th Cir. 2004).

After our review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3699 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2006 Entry ID: 2102037