United States v. Shane Willis, No. 13-1873 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Challenge to reasonableness of defendant's sentence must fail as the district court had no authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum; Alleyne does not apply to defendant's sentence because his status as an armed career offender was based on prior convictions. [ November 14, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1873 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Shane Willis, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2013 Filed: November 15, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Shane Willis directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court1 sentenced him as an armed career 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the prison term imposed by the district court is unreasonable. In a letter filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), counsel draws our attention to Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). Counsel s challenge to the reasonableness of Willis s sentence is unavailing because the district court had no authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006). Alleyne does not apply to Willis s sentence, because his status as an armed career criminal was based on prior convictions. See Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 n.1. Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Willis about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
