Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03349/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03349-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Darrell D. Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3349

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Darrell D. Walker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 25, 2007

Filed: May 2, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Walker appeals from his conviction upon a jury verdict finding him

guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, and from the

sentence imposed by the district court.1

 Upon review of his arguments, we affirm.

To begin, we hold that the government satisfied its burden to prove the

interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See United States v. Carter, 270

F.3d 731, 734-35 (8th Cir. 2001) (proof that firearm was manufactured in one state

Appellate Case: 05-3349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2007 Entry ID: 3304928
-2-

and recovered in another satisfies interstate commerce element; evidence was

sufficient where firearms expert testified that firearm was manufactured in state other

than state in which defendant possessed it). Walker’s related jurisdictional argument

is also without merit. See United States v. Rankin, 64 F.3d 338, 339 (8th Cir. 1995)

(per curiam) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

§ 922(g)(1) “clearly is tied to interstate commerce”).

We further conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Walker in

accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (imposing mandatory minimum sentence for

armed career criminals). The existence of sentence-enhancing prior convictions need

not be found by a jury. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005) (any

fact other than prior conviction which is 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 reasonable doubt);

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 244-46 (1998) (recidivism, as

basis for increasing sentence, need not be charged in indictment and may be

subsequently decided by court at sentencing); United States v. Strong, 415 F.3d 902,

907 (8th Cir. 2005) (construing Booker as reaffirming holding in Almendarez-Torres),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1121 (2006).

Finally, we decline to consider Walker’s ineffective-assistance arguments on

direct appeal. See United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004)

(ineffective-assistance claims are generally better left for postconviction proceedings;

such claims are proper on direct appeal only where record has been fully developed,

to avoid plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s ineffectiveness is readily

apparent).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3349 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2007 Entry ID: 3304928