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. Rodney Franklin PITTMAN Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
Rodney Pittman pleaded guilty to three controlled substance offenses: one count of conspiracy to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846; and two counts of distribution of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). At sentencing, and over Pittman’s objection, the district court 1 found that Pittman’s two prior felony convictions for Minnesota simple robbery under Minn. Stat. § 609.24 qualified as crimes of violence under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2(a)(1) (2016) and applied the career offender enhancement pursuant to § 4B1.1. The district court varied below the resultant recommended Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months of imprisonment and sentenced Pittman to 90 months. Pittman now appeals the district court’s career offender designation, which we review de novo. See United States v. Williams, 926 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2019).
Pittman argues that after Stokeling v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 544, 202 L.Ed.2d 512 (2019), his convictions for Minnesota simple robbery do not qualify as crimes of violence under the “force clause” of the Guidelines. See USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1) (defining a crime of violence as “any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that ․ has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another”). That is so, according to Pittman, because the Minnesota simple robbery statute does not require force to be used in the “taking” of property. In our recent decision in Taylor v. United States, 926 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2019), however, we rejected that very argument. Id. at 941–42 (construing the identically-worded force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act). Several other subsequent decisions by our court reaffirmed that, even after Stokeling, a conviction for Minnesota simple robbery categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause of the Guidelines. See, e.g., Williams, 926 F.3d at 969; United States v. Robinson, 925 F.3d 997, 999 (8th Cir. 2019). The district court thus properly applied the career offender enhancement, and we affirm Pittman’s sentence.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
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. 18-3048
Decided: July 31, 2019
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)