United States v. Easter

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Easter

123 F. App'x 270

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2609

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. App'x 270 (United States v. Easter) 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. Easter, 123 F. App'x 270 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kurtis Ray Easter appeals the sentence that the district court¹ imposed after he [271]*271pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). Easter argues that the court plainly erred by making factual findings that increased his punishment under U.S.S.G. §§ 3A1.2(a)(l)(A) (official victim) and 4B1.1 (career offender).

Assuming arguendo that we should review for plain error under United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we conclude that any error in making the section 3A1.2(a)(l)(A) finding did not affect Easter’s substantial rights. Even without that enhancement, the same total offense level and criminal history category would have resulted from Easter’s classification as a career offender, which was based on the district court’s finding that Easter had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence, see id. at 756 (reaffirming that fact of prior conviction need not be established by guilty plea or jury verdict).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kurtis Ray Easter appeals the sentence that the district court¹ imposed after he [271]*271pleaded guilty to mailing a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). Easter argues that the court plainly erred by making factual findings that increased his punishment under U.S.S.G. §§ 3A1.2(a)(l)(A) (official victim) and 4B1.1 (career offender).

Assuming arguendo that we should review for plain error under United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we conclude that any error in making the section 3A1.2(a)(l)(A) finding did not affect Easter’s substantial rights. Even without that enhancement, the same total offense level and criminal history category would have resulted from Easter’s classification as a career offender, which was based on the district court’s finding that Easter had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence, see id. at 756 (reaffirming that fact of prior conviction need not be established by guilty plea or jury verdict).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. App'x 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-easter-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack