United States v. Henry Smith

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 24, 2019
• Docket: 18-3292
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3292 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Henry Smith

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________

Submitted: May 21, 2019 Filed: May 24, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Henry Smith pleaded guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). At sentencing, the district court 1 determined that he was a career offender based on two

1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. previous federal bank-robbery convictions and imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 151 months in prison. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)–(b). In an Anders brief, Smith’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and identifies the applicability of the career-offender classification and a two-level Guidelines enhancement as two issues for us to consider on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in classifying Smith as a career offender. See United States v. Harper, 869 F.3d 624, 626–27 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that “bank robbery by intimidation under § 2113(a) is a crime of violence” under the Guidelines); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, when a defendant fails to object to an alleged procedural error, we review it for plain error). In light of this conclusion, we need not address Smith’s alternative argument about a Guidelines enhancement that had no effect on his sentence. See United States v. LeGrand, 468 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2006).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

-2-