United States v. John Jett, No. 10-3572 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Defendant's Missouri burglary convictions were properly considered violent felonies for purposes of the armed- career-criminal status. Sentence at bottom of guidelines range is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3572 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. John J. Jett, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: April 21, 2011 Filed: April 22, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. John Jett pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The district court1 concluded that he was an armed career criminal, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), and sentenced him to 188 months in prison, the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Jett s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Jett has filed a pro se supplemental brief. After careful review, we affirm. 1 The HONORABLE RICHARD E. DORR, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. In the Anders brief, counsel argues that Jett s eleven Missouri burglary convictions for first- and second-degree burglary were not violent felonies for purposes of armed-career-criminal status, and Jett argues the same. These convictions qualify as violent felonies, however, as both the statute itself and our precedent make clear. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B); United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2006). Further, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Jett 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.
