United States v. Aliance Giles

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2811 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aliance C. Giles

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: September 5, 2019 Filed: September 9, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Aliance Giles appeals after he pled guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term within the calculated United States

1 The Honorable Greg Kays, then Chief Judge, now United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), challenging the use of Giles’s prior Missouri convictions for second-degree robbery and second-degree assault as crimes of violence for the purpose of determining his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (noting offense level 24 applies to unlawful possession of firearm committed subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions for crimes of violence).

We conclude the district court did not err in calculating Giles’s Guidelines range. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error); see also United States v. Ramey, 880 F.3d 447, 448-49 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding Missouri second-degree assault conviction for recklessly causing physical injury to another person by means of discharging a firearm was crime of violence under Guidelines); cf. United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (holding Missouri second-degree robbery conviction categorically qualifies as violent felony under Armed Career Criminal Act); United States v. Hall, 877 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2017) (construing definitions of violent felony under Armed Career Criminal Act and crime of violence under Guidelines as interchangeable). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________

-2-