United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3919

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Clarence L. Woolsoncroft

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Western

____________

Submitted: June 22, 2022

Filed: June 27, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Woolsoncroft received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon and unlawful drug user in possession of firearms and ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief, counsel challenges the offense-level calculation. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief urges us to vacate on the ground that

Woolsoncroft believed his civil rights had been restored. See Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019).

We conclude that the district court1 did not clearly err when it applied the challenged enhancements, see United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015), nor when it denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, see United States v. Davis, 875 F.3d 869, 875 (8th Cir. 2017). There is also no evidence that his past felony has been “expunged,” or that his “civil rights” have been restored. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B); see also United States v. Crumble, 965 F.3d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 2020).

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.