United States v. Alfred Walker


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Morris S. Arnold and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED) [3998784] [12-2618]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2618 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee v. Alfred J. Walker lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ____________ Submitted: January 14, 2013 Filed: January 29, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Alfred Walker appeals from the sentence of 180 months' imprisonment that the district court1 imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession 1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 12-2618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Entry ID: 3998784 of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mr. Walker maintains that the district court erred when it enhanced his sentence for being an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which in relevant part provides for a sentence enhancement in his case if he had already been convicted of two offenses that are "burglary ... or [a crime that] otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." Id. at § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mr. Walker argues that the so-called "otherwise" or residual clause of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) is unconstitutionally vague, but the Supreme Court has already rejected this argument. See James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 210 n.6 (2007); see also United States v. Childs, 403 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 954 (2005). The residual clause is irrelevant to this case anyway, since Mr. Walker's enhancement was based on convictions for second-degree burglary under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170, and we have held that the offense described in this statute is "burglary" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), so long as the burglary is of a " 'building or structure.' " See United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990) (emphasis added in Bell). Mr. Walker has admitted that the burglaries for which he was convicted were of buildings, and the residual clause is therefore out of the case. Affirmed. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-2618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Entry ID: 3998784

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?