Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02496/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02496-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Lakeith Moore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2496

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jonathan Lakeith Moore, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2005

Filed: June 15, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After the government charged Jonathan Moore with knowingly making a false

written statement intended or likely to deceive a licensed firearms dealer, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), Moore filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. The district

court1

 overruled the motion, and Moore later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 5

years probation and 6 months home detention. On appeal, Moore argues that the

indictment failed to state a crime and that the statute as applied was unconstitutionally

vague because Moore reasonably could have believed he was answering truthfully

Appellate Case: 04-2496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2005 Entry ID: 1916049
-2-

when he listed himself as the actual buyer on the ATF form at issue. Moore also

argues that an obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement was improperly applied.

Lastly, Moore's counsel filed a portion of his appellate brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this Court to review the record to determine

whether there exist any nonfrivolous issues under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004), which would benefit Moore, and if so, to grant him leave to withdraw

from pursuing the appeal on all issues relating to Blakely.

Moore’s challenge to the statute and his indictment is foreclosed by our recent

decision in United States v. Blake, 394 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming

denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss indictment charging him under § 922(a)(6)

for representing on ATF form that he was actual buyer of firearms; district court

properly held that statute was not unconstitutionally vague and defendant’s “straw

purchases” of firearms on behalf of others who provided purchaser money clearly

violated § 922(a)(6)); United States v. Kirchoff, 387 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 2004)

(denial of motion to dismiss indictment reviewed de novo), petition for cert. filed, No.

04-9167 (U.S. Mar. 14, 2005). As to the obstruction-of-justice enhancement, this is

a matter that we will not review because the district court departed below the

Sentencing Guidelines range that would have been applicable absent the

enhancement. See United States v. Baker, 64 F.3d 439, 441 (8th Cir. 1995). 

Having carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues relating to Blakely. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 

 ________________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2005 Entry ID: 1916049