United States v. Jerome Nash, No. 19-2944 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in sentencing defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act, as his prior Missouri conviction for second-degree robbery qualified as an ACCA predicate offense - see U.S. v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018 (en banc). [ May 07, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2944 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Jerome Nash, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 5, 2020 Filed: May 8, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jerome Nash appeals after he pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court1 sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act 1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to 180 months in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the determination that Nash’s prior second-degree robbery convictions qualified as ACCA predicate offenses. After careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that Nash’s prior Missouri second-degree robbery convictions qualified as ACCA predicate offenses. This court previously has determined that a conviction under Missouri’s second-degree robbery statute categorically qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense. See United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668, 671 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1258 (2019); see also United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -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.
