Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Danny Moore v. Gene Beasley, 18-1985 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 18-1985 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jan. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1985 _ Danny R. Moore lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Gene Beasley, Warden, Forrest City lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena _ Submitted: January 15, 2019 Filed: January 29, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Danny Moore appeals after the district court1 dismissed his 28 U.S.C. §
More
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 18-1985
                        ___________________________

                                  Danny R. Moore

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

                       Gene Beasley, Warden, Forrest City

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: January 15, 2019
                             Filed: January 29, 2019
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Danny Moore appeals after the district court1 dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition, in which he asserted his prior burglary convictions no longer qualified as

      1
        The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent
of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
career-offender predicates after Mathis v. United States, 
136 S. Ct. 2243
, 2257
(2016). Upon careful de novo review, see Abdullah v. Hedrick, 
392 F.3d 957
, 959
(8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that Moore’s claim does not entitle him to relief. See,
e.g., Martin v. United States, 
904 F.3d 594
, 597 (8th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________




                                        -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer