UNITED STATES v. POWERS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-05-20No. No. 20-3151

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's Guidelines-range sentence and granted counsel leave to withdraw.

David Ray Powers, Jr. appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to bank robbery and felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California raising two procedural challenges: whether the district court properly imposed a 6-level enhancement based on classifying a prior California assault with a deadly weapon conviction as a crime of violence, and whether a 4-level enhancement for possessing a firearm during the bank robbery was appropriate. Powers also argued the overall sentence was substantively unreasonable.

The appellate court found no error in either the procedural application of the sentencing enhancements or in the reasonableness of the sentence itself. The court determined that the prior California conviction qualified as a crime of violence under applicable guidelines, and that the firearm enhancement was properly applied because the weapon's presence facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the bank robbery. Reviewing the record for any nonfrivolous issues, the court found none.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether prior California assault with deadly weapon conviction qualifies as crime of violence
Whether firearm enhancement properly applied when weapon present during bank robbery
Whether Guidelines-range sentence was substantively reasonable

Procedural posture

Powers appealed his Guidelines-range sentence imposed after pleading guilty to bank robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm, with counsel filing an Anders brief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

David Ray Powers, Jr., appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court

imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that the district court procedurally erred in applying a 6-level enhancement to Powerss base offense level based on the classification of his prior California conviction for assault with a deadly weapon as a crime of violence, and a 4-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with the bank robbery. Powers also challenges the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in applying the sentencing enhancements. See United States v. Kirlin, 859 F.3d 539, 543 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review); United States v. Guiheen, 594 F.3d 589, 591 (8th Cir. 2010) (“in connection with” in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) means that the firearm had a purpose or effect with respect to the other felony offense because its presence facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the offense); U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), 4B1.2(a)(1); cf. United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding conviction under pre-2011 version of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 16(a), as it requires use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force). We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.