Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elbert JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-22
Citations: 534 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 13-1181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elbert JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elbert JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-1181.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 23, 2013.
Filed: Oct. 22, 2013.
Thomas Joseph Mehan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brian S. Witherspoon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On September 14, 2012, Elbert Jordan pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On January 8, 2013, the district court sentenced Jordan to 70 months imprisonment. Jordan challenges the calculation of his sentence.
In his Presentence Investigation Report, Jordan's criminal history included a combined four points for a 1987 Missouri state conviction of one count of first degree robbery and one companion count of armed criminal action. During his sentencing in this case, Jordan objected and argued the state conviction should count as three points, although Jordan conceded the one point difference would not materially affect the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) range. The district court overruled the objection, noting the fourth point "has no impact on the Criminal History Category because even if we were to remove one point, the defendant would still be in Criminal History Category V." Jordan appeals this decision.
Jordan and the district court were correct that the fourth point, even if improperly assessed, has no bearing on the Guidelines range. Because the asserted error is harmless, we need not reach the merits of Jordan's argument. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(a); United States v. Casteel, 717 F.3d 635, 646-47 (8th Cir.2013) (disregarding an asserted error in calculating criminal history points because the purported error had no impact on the length of the sentence).
We affirm.
. The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.