Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02380/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02380-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John D. Bratton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2380

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

John D. Bratton, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2005

Filed: July 26, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Bratton appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). After

moving to withdraw and filing a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), Bratton’s counsel, with this court’s permission, filed a supplemental brief

raising an argument based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and

requesting oral argument; the government has filed a responsive brief. We deny the

request for oral argument, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-2380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2005 Entry ID: 1932614
-2-

At sentencing, over Bratton’s objection, the district court determined that he

was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The court also denied Bratton’s

motion for a downward departure based on a criminal history score that Bratton

argued over-represented the seriousness of his past conduct.

As he did below, Bratton argues that one of the convictions on which his

career-offender classification was based should not count as a qualifying conviction

for career-offender purposes. Bratton was convicted in Kansas in 1992 for “attempt

to possess marijuana with intent to sell.” He argues that the conviction should not

count because it was an attempted crime only and involved Bratton’s possession of

only 29 grams of marijuana, which he intended to use personally. We agree with the

district court that these arguments are unavailing. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) &

comment. (n.1) (defining “controlled substance offense” to include attempted

possession with intent to distribute); United States v. Hernandez, 309 F.3d 458, 462

(7th Cir. 2002) (rejecting argument that conviction for possession of cocaine with

intent to sell should not be counted under career-offender Guideline because

conviction was 10 years old and involved “very small amounts of the drug”). As for

the district court’s denial of Bratton’s downward-departure motion, such denial is

unreviewable. See United States v. Mohr, 407 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (denial of downward departure based on over-representative criminal history

is unreviewable where district court was aware of its authority to depart).

Bratton did not preserve his Booker argument, and we conclude that he cannot

show plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50, 552-53 (8th Cir.

2005) (en banc) (preservation of Booker error; plain-error standard of review). The

judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2005 Entry ID: 1932614