United States v. Ahmad Hudson

688 F. App'x 413
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 30, 2017
Docket16-1751
StatusUnpublished

This text of 688 F. App'x 413 (United States v. Ahmad Hudson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ahmad Hudson, 688 F. App'x 413 (8th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ahmad Hudson pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court * concluded that Hudson’s base of *414 fense level should be increased under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(3), because he had sustained a prior conviction for a “crime of violence.” The prior conviction was for unlawful use of a weapon under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4). The court then determined that Hudson’s advisory guideline range was 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment and sentenced him to a term of 70 months’ imprisonment.

Hudson appeals, arguing that the district court committed procedural error by counting his prior conviction as a crime of violence. In United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2009), this court held that a conviction under § 571.030.1(4) is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), because it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. “Crime of violence” under the guidelines also includes offenses that have such an element, see USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1), so Pulliam dictates that Hudson sustained a qualifying prior conviction.

Hudson asserts that intervening Supreme Court decisions have superseded the reasoning of Pulliam, and that we should conclude under current law that his prior conviction is not a crime of violence. We rejected the same argument in United States v. Steven Hudson, 851 F.3d 807, 808-10 (8th Cir. 2017), and Hudson’s contention is foreclosed by this recent decision. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

*

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Pulliam
566 F.3d 784 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Steven Hudson
851 F.3d 807 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
688 F. App'x 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ahmad-hudson-ca8-2017.