United States v. Elbert Jordan, No. 13-1181 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. Because the error asserted in calculating criminal history has no bearing on the applicable guidelines range, any error is harmless and the sentence is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1181 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Elbert Jordan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: September 23, 2013 Filed: October 22, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. On September 14, 2012, Elbert Jordan pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1). On January 8, 2013, the district court1 sentenced Jordan to 70 months imprisonment. Jordan challenges the calculation of his sentence. In his Presentence Investigation Report, Jordan s criminal history included a combined four points for a 1987 Missouri state conviction of one count of first degree robbery and one companion count of armed criminal action. During his sentencing in this case, Jordan objected and argued the state conviction should count as three points, although Jordan conceded the one point difference would not materially affect the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) range. The district court overruled the objection, noting the fourth point has no impact on the Criminal History Category because even if we were to remove one point, the defendant would still be in Criminal History Category V. Jordan appeals this decision. Jordan and the district court were correct that the fourth point, even if improperly assessed, has no bearing on the Guidelines range. Because the asserted error is harmless, we need not reach the merits of Jordan s argument. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); United States v. Casteel, 717 F.3d 635, 646-47 (8th Cir. 2013) (disregarding an asserted error in calculating criminal history points because the purported error had no impact on the length of the sentence). We affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, 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.
