Filed: Apr. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-3579 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Gerald D. Scurlock, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 13, 1999 _ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Gerald D. Scurlock pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-3579 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Gerald D. Scurlock, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 13, 1999 _ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Gerald D. Scurlock pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)...
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 98-3579
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Gerald D. Scurlock, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 7, 1999
Filed: April 13, 1999
___________
Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Gerald D. Scurlock pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced Mr. Scurlock to
27 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. On appeal, counsel filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district
court imposed too harsh a sentence. We note Mr. Scurlock’s sentence falls at the
bottom of the Guidelines range to which the parties stipulated in their plea agreement,
1
The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri.
see United States v. Nguyen,
46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who
explicitly and voluntarily exposes self to specific sentence may not challenge his
sentence on appeal), and in any event, the argument lacks merit, see Neal v.
Grammer,
975 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1992).
In accordance with Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have reviewed
the record for any nonfrivolous issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-