Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Currie MOORE, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-29
Citations: 290 F. App'x 970
Docket Number: No. 07-3240
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Currie MOORE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 290
Pages: 970–970

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Currie MOORE, Appellant.
No. 07-3240.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2008.
Filed: Aug. 29, 2008.
Thomas Joseph Mehan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
Natt Scott Rosenblum, Rosenblum & Schwartz, St. Louis, MO, Currie Moore, Greenville, IL, for Appellants.
Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Currie Moore challenges the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court found that Moore possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Accordingly, the court applied a 4-level specific offense characteristic under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6), and imposed a statutory maximum sentence of 120 months' imprisonment, which within the advisory guideline range. Moore appealed, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the district court's found, by a preponderance of evidence, certain facts supporting the specific offense characteristic, especially because this court may now apply an appellate presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the advisory guideline range.
We review the issues raised by Moore for plain error, as he did not raise them in the district court. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc). We conclude that the district court did not err in deciding the facts relevant to sentencing or in applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (other than prior conviction, any fact that increases penalty for crime beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt); United States v. Garcia-Gonon, 433 F.3d 587, 593 (8th Cir.2006) (under advisory Guidelines regime, sentencing judges are only required to find sentence-enhancing facts by preponderance of evidence). Furthermore, Moore's apparent challenge to the appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentences within the advisory range is foreclosed by Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.