Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02360/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02360-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James M. Alsup
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2360

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

James M. Alsup, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: April 14, 2008

Filed: April 17, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

 James M. Alsup appeals the 180-month mandatory minimum sentence the

district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of

firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). He

argues that the district court’s imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) is illegal, because it is not factually supported. See 18

U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (§ 922(g) offender who has at least 3 prior convictions for violent

felony or serious drug offense is subject to at least 15 years in prison). Specifically,

Appellate Case: 07-2360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2008 Entry ID: 3424748
-2-

he argues that the court never received into evidence the government’s exhibits

concerning his prior felony convictions, and did not make the required findings for the

statutory minimum sentence.

Alsup’s arguments are belied by the record: the sentencing transcript shows

clearly that the district court admitted the government’s exhibits supporting and

detailing four of his prior felony convictions; and, in its Statement of Reasons, the

court specifically adopted, without change, the presentence report, which listed and

described the predicate convictions and concluded that armed-career-criminal status

was warranted under section 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2008 Entry ID: 3424748