Court Opinion

ID: 4924606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-23 16:00:36.035679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:15.380033
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
          For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 21-1236
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

        Curlie Marque Quarterman

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
      ___________________________

             No. 21-1237
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

        Curlie Marque Quarterman

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                   ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
 for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
               ____________
                           Submitted: September 20, 2021
                             Filed: September 23, 2021
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Curlie Quarterman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm
and Hobbs Act robbery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 1951(a). The district court1
consolidated the cases and gave him a 228-month sentence. In an Anders brief,
Quarterman’s counsel argues that two prior felonies should have been treated as one
under the Armed Career Criminal Act because they were not committed on
“occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).

       We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in concluding otherwise.
See United States v. Boman, 873 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing an
ACCA determination for plain error in the absence of an on-point objection); see
also United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.3d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining when
felonies are committed on different occasions). Nor, under circuit precedent, did the
issue need to be decided by a jury. See United States v. Harris, 794 F.3d 885, 887
(8th Cir. 2015) (stating that whether prior offenses were committed on different
occasions is a recidivism-related fact that is for the district court to determine).

      Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel
permission to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

                                         -2-