United States v. Ahmad Hudson, No. 16-1751 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Colloton, Murphy, and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentence. District court's enhancement of base offense level under USSG sec. 2K2.1(a)(3) for prior unlawful use of a weapon under Mo. Rev. Stat. sec 571.030.1(4) is affirmed. Argument that Supreme Court decisions superseded the reasoning of United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2009) is foreclosed by United States v. Hudson, 851 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2017).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1751 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Ahmad R. Hudson, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: January 9, 2017 Filed: May 30, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ahmad Hudson pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court* concluded that Hudson’s base offense level should be increased under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(3), because he had sustained a prior conviction for a “crime of violence.” The prior conviction was for unlawful use of a weapon under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4). The court then determined that Hudson’s advisory guideline range was 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment and sentenced him to a term of 70 months’ imprisonment. Hudson appeals, arguing that the district court committed procedural error by counting his prior conviction as a crime of violence. In United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2009), this court held that a conviction under § 571.030.1(4) is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), because it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. “Crime of violence” under the guidelines also includes offenses that have such an element, see USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1), so Pulliam dictates that Hudson sustained a qualifying prior conviction. Hudson asserts that intervening Supreme Court decisions have superseded the reasoning of Pulliam, and that we should conclude under current law that his prior conviction is not a crime of violence. We rejected the same argument in United States v. Steven Hudson, 851 F.3d 807, 808-10 (8th Cir. 2017), and Hudson’s contention is foreclosed by this recent decision. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ * The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
