United States v. Jeffrey Bedwell, No. 10-2270 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Sentence of statutory maximum, which was below the advisory maximum, was not unreasonable. Prior conviction for second degree burglary of commercial building was properly categorized as a crime of violence under USSG sec. 4B1.2(a)(2).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2270 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey Allen Bedwell, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: September 30, 2010 Filed: October 5, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jeffery Allen Bedwell appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing unregistered explosive devices, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d), 5845(f)(1), and 5871. Concluding that Bedwell s prior Missouri convictions for second degree burglary of commercial buildings were crimes of violence for purposes of the Guidelines career offender provisions, the court determined that his advisory guidelines range was 121 to 151 months and sentenced Bedwell to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison. His counsel has moved 1 The HONORABLE NANETTE K. LAUGHREY, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that only burglary of a dwelling is a crime of violence as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). As counsel and the district court recognized, we have repeatedly rejected this contention. See United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759, 767-69 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues. The sentence imposed, which was the statutory maximum but below the applicable Guidelines range, is not unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. ______________________________ -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.
