UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
WALTER WILLIAM ANNA, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the 1984 amendments to 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1) were intended to enhance punishment for career criminals, not create a new offense.
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and received a minimum enhanced sentence. He appealed the denial of his motion to corre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Walter William Anna entered a plea of guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1) and received a 15-year sentence, the minimum enhanced sentence. He appeals the District Court’s 1 denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 motion for correction of sentence. We affirm.
When this appeal previously was before us, we remanded the case to the District Court for a determination of whether there was excusable neglect, within the meaning of Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), for the untimely filing of Anna’s notice of appeal. See United States v. Anna, 843 F. 2d 1146 (8th Cir.1988). On remand, the District Court has made an explicit finding of excusable neglect and has extended Anna’s time for filing his appeal in accordance with Rule 4(b). In light of these rulings by the District Court, it is clear that we have jurisdiction to decide the merits of the appeal, and we now proceed to do so.2
Anna challenges his sentence on the ground that he was improperly sentenced under 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1). He contends that the 1984 amendments to § 1202(a) created a new criminal offense and were not a sentence-enhancement provision. See Armed Career Criminal Act, ch. 18, § 1802, 98 Stat. 2185 (1984) (codified at 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)). We considered and rejected that argument in United States v. Rush, 840 F. 2d 574 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2908, 101 L.Ed.2d 940 (1988). We held there that the intent of Congress was to enhance the punishment for career criminals and not to create a separate statutory offense. Id. at 578. We are bound by that holding here. Therefore, the imposition of an enhanced sentence in the present case was proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
. The Honorable James H. Meredith, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
. "If the District Court finds excusable neglect and extends Anna's time for filing a notice of appeal to January 16, 1987, the District Court shall so advise this Court, and the appeal then may proceed without further notice or briefing. United States v. Anna, 843 F. 2d 1146, 1148 (8th Cir.1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Rush, 840 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Anna, 843 F.2d 1146 (8th Cir. 1988)