Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04165/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tracy Lee Shenett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4165

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Tracy Lee Shenett, * District of Minnesota.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: September 4, 2007

Filed: September 11, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tracy Lee Shenett appeals the 151-month prison sentence that the district court1

imposed following his guilty plea to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a). Shenett was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 on the

basis of his prior Minnesota convictions for second-degree burglary of a liquor store

and third-degree burglary of a restaurant. He argues he should not have been

classified as a career offender because neither of these offenses were crimes of

Appellate Case: 06-4165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350205
-2-

violence, as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), as neither involved entry of a dwelling

or posed a serious risk of potential injury to another person.

As Shenett acknowledges, this court has held that commercial burglaries

constitute crimes of violence under section 4B1.2 because of the serious potential risk

of injury to others inherent in the offense. See United States v. Hascall, 76 F.3d 902,

904-06 (8th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1087-88 (8th

Cir. 2006); United States v. Blahowski, 324 F.3d 592, 595 (8th Cir. 2003). We are

bound to follow this precedent and to affirm. See United States v. Wright, 22 F.3d

787, 788 (8th Cir. 1994) (panel of this court is bound by prior Eighth Circuit decision

unless prior decision is overruled by this court sitting en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350205