United States v. Carlos Price, No. 08-1667 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - sentencing. Argument that the district court erred in applying Guidelines Sections 4A1.1(d) and 4A1.1(e) would not be reviewed as defendant would have received the statutorily-mandated 15 year sentence without or without application of the sections; district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the180-month sentence as it lacked discretion to impose a lesser sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1667 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Carlos Price, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: April 1, 2009 Filed: April 6, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Carlos Price appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which challenges the district court s imposition of 3 criminal history points under U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(d) and 4A1.1(e), and argues that the court abused its discretion in sentencing Price to180 months in prison. 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. We conclude that the district court s application of sections 4A1.1(d) and 4A1.1(e) is unreviewable, given that Price would have received a 15-year statutorily mandated sentence whether or not those provisions were applied. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (setting forth 15-year mandatory minimum prison term); United States v. Williams, 74 F.3d 872, 872 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (application of Guidelines provision not reviewable where defendant faced same sentence whether or not provision was applied). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Price to 180 months in prison, because the court lacked discretion to impose a lower sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (setting forth 15-year mandatory minimum prison term); United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 869 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 2009 WL 177236 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2009); United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court was without discretion to impose sentence for firearm conviction below statutory minimum). Having reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and 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.
