Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03931/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03931-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dwight Rhodes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3931

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Missouri.

Dwight Rhodes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 28, 2005

Filed: November 3, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Rhodes challenges the district court's1

 judgment and sentence, entered

after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). For reversal, Mr. Rhodes argues (1) the district court erred

in admitting his prior convictions into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence

404(b); and (2) his sentence – imposed under a mandatory Guidelines system –

violates the Sixth Amendment. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-3931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2005 Entry ID: 1970909
-2-

Any error in the admission of Mr. Rhodes's past convictions was rendered

harmless by the district court's limiting instruction. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S.

307, 324 n.9 (1985) (except in extraordinary circumstances, court assumes jurors

follow instructions); United States v. Lothridge, 332 F.3d 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2003)

(limiting instruction cured any unfair prejudice caused by introduction of prior

convictions under Rule 404(b)). Similarly, any error in treating the Guidelines as

mandatory was also harmless, because the district court indicated that it would have

imposed the same sentence even if the Guidelines were not mandatory, see United

States v. Thompson, 403 F.3d 533, 536 (8th Cir. 2005), and it sentenced Mr. Rhodes

near the top of the applicable Guidelines range, see United States v. Perez-Ramirez,

415 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding error harmless where district court "left

unused some of its discretion to sentence [defendant] to a more favorable sentence

under the mandatory, pre-Booker guidelines").

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3931 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2005 Entry ID: 1970909