United States v. Larry Holt, No. 16-3179 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The court's decision in U.S. v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2009), which held that a conviction for unlawfully using a weapon under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 571.030.1(4) is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act is still good law. See United States v. Hudson, No. 15-3744, 2017 WL 1055583 (8th Cir. March 21, 2017).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3179 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Larry Joseph Holt lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: April 3, 2017 Filed: April 17, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Larry Holt pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of conspiring to distribute heroin, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, the district court1 sentenced him as an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He maintains on appeal that the district court erred in concluding that he is an armed career criminal because his conviction for unlawfully using a weapon under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4) is not a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Holt recognizes that our court has already determined that a conviction under this statute is a violent felony, see United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir. 2009), but he argues that we are not bound by Pulliam in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions. We reject Holt's argument because another panel of our court recently determined that Pulliam is still good law despite the same authorities that Holt relies on here. See United States v. Hudson, No. 15–3744, 2017 WL 1055583, at *2–3 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2017). The decision of a prior panel binds our panel. United States v. Eason, 829 F.3d 633, 641 (8th Cir. 2016). Affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., 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.
