United States v. Tommie Anderson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 19, 2023
Docket23-1330
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Tommie Anderson (United States v. Tommie Anderson) 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. Tommie Anderson, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-1330 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tommie Anderson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ____________

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Filed: September 19, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Tommie Anderson appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and seeks leave to withdraw. Anderson argues the district court1 erred by treating his 2004 Missouri conviction for attempted second-degree robbery as a crime of violence when determining his base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”). See U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), 4B1.2(a). We conclude the conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. See United States v. Harrison, 809 F.3d 420, 425 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing de novo district court’s determination whether an offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines). We have held a Missouri conviction for second-degree robbery under the relevant statute is a crime of violence under the Guidelines. See United States v. Gordon, 69 F.4th 932, 933 (8th Cir. 2023). Anderson contends that because he was not convicted of a completed robbery, his conviction is not a crime of violence under United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2002) (holding attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)). We reject his argument because, unlike the statute at issue in Taylor, the Guidelines contain commentary specifically stating an attempt to commit a crime of violence is itself a crime of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, cmt. (n.1) (explaining crime of violence includes the offense of “attempting to commit such offense”).

Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

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. Stevenson Harrison
809 F.3d 420 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Taylor
596 U.S. 845 (Supreme Court, 2022)
United States v. George Gordon
69 F.4th 932 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Tommie Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tommie-anderson-ca8-2023.