United States v. Kelly Flannery (8th Cir. 2004)

Federal Circuits, 8th Cir. (July 27, 2004)

Docket number: 03-3454
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/18516663
Id. vLex: VLEX-18516663

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-3454

United States of America, Appellee, v. Kelly Flannery, Appellant.

Submitted: July 2, 2004 Filed: July 27, 2004

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kelly Flannery appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting others in willfully making a threat and maliciously conveying false information, over the telephone, about alleged attempts to blow up a courthouse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(e) and 2. At sentencing, the district court determined that Flannery was a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. We affirm. Flannery argues for the first time that he was improperly classified as a career offender because the instant offense did not qualify as a "crime of violence." We find that the court did not plainly err in classifying the instant offenseaiding and abetting others in threatening to blow up the courthouseas a crime of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (defining crime of violence); United States v. Santos, 131 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 1997); cf. United States v. Left Hand Bull, 901 F.2d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1990) (where defendant mailed threatening letter, he committed crime of violence under career-offender provisions, even if he lacked ability to act contemporaneously upon his threat). Flannery also argues he should have received an acceptance-of- responsibility reduction. We reject this contention, because in light of the evidence presented at sentencing, the court did not clearly err in finding that Flannery minimized his role in the offense to the probation officer who interviewed him. See United States v. Alaniz, 148 F.3d 929, 937 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying acceptance-of- responsibility reduction because entry of guilty plea alone did not entitle defendant to reduction, and he continued to deny his involvement in offense after there was substantial evidence of his participation).

We do not reach Flannery§ 4B1.1(b). Accordingly, we affirm.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

[UNPUBLISHED]

[1] The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Other documents:
The Buckeye Steel Castings Co. 982 1948 | Notice Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedent... | SEVEN FIFTY, INC. v. HUNTER., 216 Ga. 407, 116 S.E.2.d 552 (1960) | 7 CFR 1902.50 - OMB control number. | 46 CFR 169.564 Fixed extinguishing system general. | la ministra de defensa trata de concienciar a los diputados sobre las bombas de racimo | règlement ce nº 1614/2002 de la commission du 6 septembre 2002 adaptant le règlement ce euratom nº 58/97 du conseil aux évolutions économiques et... | Resolución de 22 de junio de 1998, de la Dirección General de la Función ... | Edicto sobre notificacion y emplazamiento en el recurso contencioso-Administrativo n 360/... | citación para otorgamiento de escritura de venta de bienes inmuebles.