United States v. Todd Clark

413 F. App'x 933
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 24, 2011
Docket10-3183
StatusUnpublished

This text of 413 F. App'x 933 (United States v. Todd Clark) 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. Todd Clark, 413 F. App'x 933 (8th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Todd Clark pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 sentenced him to 180 months in prison as an armed career criminal (ACC) under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which mandates imprisonment of not less than 15 years for a § 922(g) offender who has three previous convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense committed on occasions different from one another. Clark appeals. 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), questioning Clark’s ACC status.

We hold that the district court properly sentenced Clark as an ACC. The record showed, and Clark conceded, that he had previous convictions for three burglaries, committed on three different days over a three-month period. See United States v. Gray, 85 F.3d 380, 381 (8th Cir.1996) (discrete criminal episodes, rather than dates of conviction, trigger sentence enhancement under § 924(e)(1); burglaries committed only 25 minutes apart were separate offenses for purposes of § 924(e)(1)). Because of Clark’s ACC status, the court had no discretion to sentence him below the 15-year statutory minimum. See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003) (only authority to depart from statutory minimum is in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government moves for departure based on substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. John Gray, Also Known as Jon Gray
85 F.3d 380 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Jose A. Chacon
330 F.3d 1065 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 F. App'x 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-todd-clark-ca8-2011.