Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02001/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James T. Dawn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2001

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

James T. Dawn, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2006

Filed: May 12, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James T. Dawn appeals the 180-month prison sentence the district court*

imposed after Dawn pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Counsel first argues the district court’s imposition of the mandatory minimum

sentence mandated by section 924(e) is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of

Appellate Case: 05-2001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044377
-2-

the Eighth Amendment. This argument fails. See United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d

672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only sentences grossly

disproportionate to crime); United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 674, 682-83 (6th Cir.

1994) (15-year sentence imposed on basis of prior convictions was not grossly

disproportionate to felon-in-possession offense); United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d

639, 641 (8th Cir. 1989) (mandatory minimum sentencing does not violate

defendant’s constitutional rights). 

Counsel next argues the district court violated Dawn’s Sixth Amendment rights

because Dawn’s sentence was enhanced based on earlier convictions not proven to

a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument also fails. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005) (any fact, other than earlier convictions, necessary

to support sentence exceeding maximum authorized by facts established by guilty

plea or jury verdict must be admitted by defendant or proved to jury beyond a

reasonable doubt); cf. United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir.)

(district court, not jury, determines whether earlier convictions subject defendant to

be sentenced as career offender), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 457 (2005).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044377