United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft
This text of United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft (United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft) 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.
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Submitted: June 22, 2022 Filed: June 27, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________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.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clarence-woolsoncroft-ca8-2022.