Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keeyon M. DUNBAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Keeyon Dunbar (“Dunbar”) directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in calculating Dunbar’s base offense level by treating a prior felony bank robbery conviction as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (offense level of 20 applies to unlawful possession of a firearm if the defendant has a prior felony conviction for a crime of violence), and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
First, we find no error in the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines range, see United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (this court reviews the district court’s application of Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error), as bank robbery is a crime of violence, see United States v. Harper, 869 F.3d 624, 626-27 (8th Cir. 2017) (bank robbery is crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) ); United States v. Ossana, 638 F.3d 895, 898 (8th Cir. 2011) (the term “crime of violence” under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) has the same meaning as in § 4B1.2(a) ).
In addition, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 92, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-3227
Decided: June 08, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)