Filed: Oct. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-3279 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Arinthius Johnson Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: September 23, 2019 Filed: October 11, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before KELLY, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arinthius Johnson received a below-Guidelines-range, 96-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to possessing
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-3279 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Arinthius Johnson Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: September 23, 2019 Filed: October 11, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before KELLY, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arinthius Johnson received a below-Guidelines-range, 96-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to possessing a..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-3279
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Arinthius Johnson
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: September 23, 2019
Filed: October 11, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arinthius Johnson received a below-Guidelines-range, 96-month prison
sentence after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On appeal, he argues that the district court 1 erroneously
1
The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
-1-
counted his prior Missouri conviction of unlawful use of a weapon as a “crime of
violence,” which increased his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.
See U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(2), 4B1.2(a); see also Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4). We
considered and rejected this argument in United States v. Hudson,
851 F.3d 807 (8th
Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir.
R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-