United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 27, 2022
Docket21-3919
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft, (8th Cir. 2022).

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Submitted: June 22, 2022 Filed: June 27, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________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

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Donald Turner, Jr.
781 F.3d 374 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Candice Davis
875 F.3d 869 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
Rehaif v. United States
588 U.S. 225 (Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Clarence Woolsoncroft, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clarence-woolsoncroft-ca8-2022.