Filed: Aug. 10, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ Nos. 00-1839/1888 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Nebraska. Harry D. Mosley, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: August 3, 2000 Filed: August 10, 2000 _ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Harry D. Mosley, Jr., pleaded guilty of three bank robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d),
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ Nos. 00-1839/1888 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Nebraska. Harry D. Mosley, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: August 3, 2000 Filed: August 10, 2000 _ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Harry D. Mosley, Jr., pleaded guilty of three bank robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), a..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 00-1839/1888
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeals from the United States
v. * District Court for the District
* of Nebraska.
Harry D. Mosley, Jr., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: August 3, 2000
Filed: August 10, 2000
___________
Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Harry D. Mosley, Jr., pleaded guilty of three bank robberies, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and was sentenced to 192 months imprisonment and three
years supervised release. He appeals, arguing that the district court1 erroneously
applied a three-level enhancement for displaying a toy gun during the offenses.
1
The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
We decline to consider the issue because the challenged enhancement ultimately
did not affect Mr. Mosley’s sentence: with or without the enhancement, his offense
level was fixed at a higher level, thirty-four, because he was a career offender. See
United States v. Darden,
70 F.3d 1507, 1548 n.17 (8th Cir. 1995) (declining to review
argument which would not affect sentence), cert. denied,
517 U.S. 1149 and
518 U.S.
1026 (1996); see also Williams v. United States,
503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992) (error that
does not affect court’s selection of sentence imposed is harmless).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-