United States v. Patrick Hott

262 F. App'x 734
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 2008
Docket07-1494
StatusUnpublished

This text of 262 F. App'x 734 (United States v. Patrick Hott) 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. Patrick Hott, 262 F. App'x 734 (8th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Donald Hott appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distribution of, and aiding and abetting the distribution of, in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(vni), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The court classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 on the basis of his prior Minnesota convictions for theft of a motor vehicle and second degree assault, resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 262-827 months in prison, but departed downward after granting a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 substantial-assistance motion by the government. For reversal, Hott argues that the career-offender provision should not have been applied because attempted theft of a motor vehicle is not a crime of violence, and that this Circuit’s categorical approach classifying this offense as such in United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747 (8th Cir.2002), conflicts with the Supreme Court’s holding in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004).

Hott’s challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Barbour, 395 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005), in which this court concluded that Sun Bear remains binding precedent after Leocal, and only the court sitting en banc may reverse Sun Bear’s holding. See *735 Barbour, 395 F.3d at 827-28 (Eighth Circuit precedent bound panel to hold vehicle-theft conviction constituted crime of violence); Sun Bear, 307 F.3d at 752-53 (holding categorically that “the theft or attempted theft of an operable vehicle is a crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2); United States v. Wright, 22 F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir.1994) (panel of this court is bound by prior Eighth Circuit decision unless prior decision is overruled by this court sitting en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, 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

Leocal v. Ashcroft
543 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Dana Wright
22 F.3d 787 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Walter R. Barbour
395 F.3d 826 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 F. App'x 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-patrick-hott-ca8-2008.