# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 10 94

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Alb ert Lam

be rs

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Aug us t 1 9, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 2, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Alb ert Lam

be rs pl e a d ed gu il ty t o be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. The pr es en te nc e rep or t no te d th at he ha d th ree pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s whi ch qu al ifi ed as vi ol en t fel on ie s or se ri o u s dr ug of fen se s (a 19 96 Mi ss ou ri vo lu nt ary-m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti on , a 19 99 Mi ss ou ri st eal in g- fro m -ape rs on co nv ic ti on , an d a 20 02 fed eral co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si ng co cai ne ba s e w i thin te nt to di st rib ut e), an d th u s r e c o mm e n de d ap pl y in g 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e) wit h it s

m an da to ry m in im

um pr i so n te rm of 15 y ears

. The go ve rn m en t m ov ed un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 ( e ) fo r a se nt en ce be lo w th e m an da to ry m in im um

. Afte r co nc lu di ng th at sec ti on 92 4( e) ap pl ie d t o Lam be rs , th e d is tri ct co ur t gr an te d th e g ov ern m en t’s 1

m ot io n an d se nt en ced hi m to 84 m on th s in pr is on an d 3 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

On ap pe al , de fen se co un se l ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And er s v

. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , arg ui ng th at Lam be rs ’s m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti on was no t a vi ol en t fel on y un de r se ct io n 92 4( e), be cau se it req ui red a m en s r e a o f on ly s ud de n pa ss io n rat he r th an in te nt io na l, pu rp os efu l co nd uc t; th at th e Mi ss ou ri st eal in g- fro m -a-p ers on of fen se was no t a vi o l e n t fel on y , co nt rary to th e ho ld in g in Uni te d St at es v. H e nn eck e, 59 0 F.3 d 61 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); an d th at , be cau se th e co ur t se nt en c i n g Lam be rs in 20 02 di d no t de te rm in e whe th er th e pr io r m an sl au gh te r an d st eal in g

co nv ic ti on s were cri m es of vi ol en ce un de r U S S G §4 B1 .2(a ), th e go ve rn m en t was

co ll at eral ly es to pp ed fro m arg ui ng in th is cas e th at th ey were v i ol en t fel on ie s. Lam be rs ’s pro se s ub m is si on res ta te s h is co un se l’s ar gu m en ts , whi ch we reject

.

Fi rs t, th e st eal in g co nv ic ti on was a vi ol en t fel on y

. See Hen ne ck e, 59 0 F.3 d at 62 2- 24 (Mi ss ou ri st eal in g- fro m -a-p ers on co nv ic ti on is cri m e o f vi ol en ce b ecau se it
ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nd uc t t ha t p res en ts ser io us po te nt ia l ri sk of ph y si cal in jury to

an ot he r un de r USSG §4 B1 .2(a )(2 )); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Mo nt go m ery, 70 1 F.3 d 12 18 , 12 22 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (co ur ts tre at a s i n t e r c h an ge ab le cri m e of vi ol en ce

un de r USSG §4 B1 .2(a ) an d vi ol en t fel on y un de r § 92 4( e)). Lik ewis e, th e

m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti on was a vi ol en t fel on y , as Mi ss ou ri’s vo lu nt ary-m an sl au gh te r st at ut e co nt ai ns an el e men t o f u s i ng ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t an ot he r pe rs on

. See 18 U.S.C § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) ; St at e v. Twent er , 8 1 8 S.W .2d 62 8, 63 4 (Mo

. 19 91 ) (v ol un ta ry -m an sl au gh te r st at ut e in Mi ss ou ri pr os cri be s th e kn ow in g ki ll i n g of a

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-pe rs on un de r th e in flu en ce of su dd en pa ss io n ari si ng fro m ad eq ua te cau se ). Fi na ll y ,

th e do ct rin e of is su e pr ecl us io n di d no t ba r th e di st ric t co ur t fro m de te rm in in g th at th e

m an sl au gh te r an d st eal in g co nv ic ti on s were vi ol en t fel on ie s, as th os e is su es were no t ad dr es se d whe n Lam

be rs was se nt en ced in 20 02

. See B & B Hard ware, In c. v. Harg is I n du s., 71 6 F.3 d 10 20 , 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (is su e pr ecl us io n ap pl ie s whe n p a r t y

so ug ht to be pr ecl ud ed was pa rty or in pr iv it y wit h pa rty to pr io r act io n; an d is su e is th e sa m e as on e th at was act ua ll y li ti ga te d in pr io r act io n, was de t e r mi n e d b y v al id

an d fi na l ju dg m en t, an d was ess en ti al to pri or jud gm en t).

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e d is tri ct co ur t, an d we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, su bjec t to co un se l in fo rm in g ap pe ll an t ab ou t pr oc ed ur es fo r s e ek in g reh eari ng or fil in g a pe ti ti on fo r cert io rari

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-