United States v. James Alsup, No. 07-2360 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Record at sentencing showed defendant had the required prior felony convictions, and the court did not err in sentencing him as an armed career criminal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2360 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. James M. Alsup, Appellant. * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: April 14, 2008 Filed: April 17, 2008 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James M. Alsup appeals the 180-month mandatory minimum sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). He argues that the district court s imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) is illegal, because it is not factually supported. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (§ 922(g) offender who has at least 3 prior convictions for violent felony or serious drug offense is subject to at least 15 years in prison). Specifically, 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. he argues that the court never received into evidence the government s exhibits concerning his prior felony convictions, and did not make the required findings for the statutory minimum sentence. Alsup s arguments are belied by the record: the sentencing transcript shows clearly that the district court admitted the government s exhibits supporting and detailing four of his prior felony convictions; and, in its Statement of Reasons, the court specifically adopted, without change, the presentence report, which listed and described the predicate convictions and concluded that armed-career-criminal status was warranted under section 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
