United States v. Oscar Lee
This text of 571 F. App'x 501 (United States v. Oscar Lee) 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
Oscar Lee directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and the district court 1 sentenced him as an armed career criminal to fifteen years in prison, the mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Lee’s sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly determined that Lee qualified as an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F.3d 1049, 1056-57 (8th Cir.2010) (rejecting challenge to sentence based on age of § 924(e) predicate offenses). We also note that the district court had no authority to impose a prison term of fewer than the statutory minimum term of fifteen years. See United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
571 F. App'x 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-oscar-lee-ca8-2014.