Court Opinion

ID: 9894882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 16:00:57.160016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:55.692798
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-1343
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                          v.

                             Rayjon Matthew Willis,

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                      ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                        for the District of Minnesota
                                ____________

                          Submitted: October 31, 2023
                           Filed: November 3, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Rayjon Willis appeals after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a
firearm as a felon. The district court1 sentenced him to 180 months in prison.

      1
       The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
Willis’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging his designation as an armed career
criminal. Willis has filed a pro se brief, also arguing that he is not an armed career
criminal.

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
determining that Willis’s prior Minnesota convictions qualified as predicate offenses
under the Armed Career Criminal Act. This court has determined that Minnesota
third-degree and second-degree assault convictions qualify as violent felonies. See
United States v. Wadena, 895 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam); United
States v. Lindsey, 827 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2016). Willis’s domestic assault
conviction similarly qualifies given the underlying statute’s incorporation of
Minnesota’s definition of assault. See United States v. Huntington, 44 F.4th 812, 814
(8th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). Contrary to Willis’s arguments, the specific factual
circumstances of his prior offenses are irrelevant. See United States v. Irons, 849
F.3d 743, 746 (8th Cir. 2017). It is of no moment whether any of his offenses were
premised on aiding and abetting liability. See United States v. Gammell, 932 F.3d
1175, 1180 (8th Cir. 2019).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-