United States v. Norman Unverzagt

166 F. App'x 886
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 2006
Docket05-2278
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 F. App'x 886 (United States v. Norman Unverzagt) 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. Norman Unverzagt, 166 F. App'x 886 (8th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Norman Dale Unverzagt plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 found that Unverzagt had three prior convictions for “violent felonies” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The district court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months under that statute.

*887 Unverzagt appeals, arguing that two of his prior convictions were for burglaries of commercial buildings and should not be treated as “violent felonies” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Unverzagt’s arguments are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) (holding that a categorical approach is used to determine if a prior conviction involved statutory elements that showed “generic burglary,” i.e., unlawful entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure with the intent to commit a crime). Unverzagt’s arguments are also foreclosed by numerous cases from our circuit that follow Taylor and hold that burglaries of commercial buildings are “violent felonies” under § 924(e)(1). See United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 721 (8th Cir.2005) (“The guidelines definition of crime of violence found in § 4B1.2 is also viewed as interchangeable with the statutory definition of violent felony found in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).”); United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747, 753 (8th Cir.2002) (holding that attempted burglary of a commercial property qualified as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2); United States v. Hascall, 76 F.3d 902, 905 (8th Cir.1996) (“Building or structure in this generic definition is broad enough to include both a commercial building and a residence.”); United States v. Solomon, 998 F.2d 587, 590-91 (8th Cir.1993) (holding that attempted second degree robbery under Minnesota law qualified as a “violent felony” under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

Related

Norman Unverzagt v. United States
936 F.3d 817 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 F. App'x 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-norman-unverzagt-ca8-2006.