Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
U.S. v. WALKER, 223 Fed.Appx. 516 (8th Cir. 2007)
223 Fed.Appx. 516
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2007-05-02
- Topic
- general
U.S. v. WALKER, 223 Fed.Appx. 516 (8th Cir. 2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Darrell D. WALKER, Appellant. No. 05-3349.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted: April 25, 2007.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. WALKER, 223 Fed.Appx. 516 (8th Cir. 2007). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
U.S. v. WALKER,223 Fed.Appx. 516(8th Cir. 2007)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Darrell D. WALKER, Appellant.
No. 05-3349.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2007.
Filed: May 2, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Darrell D. Walker, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Todd P. Graves, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.Page 517
Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Todd P. Graves, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.Page 517
Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Darrell Walker appeals from his conviction upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, and from the sentence imposed by the district court.1Upon review of his arguments, we affirm.
To begin, we hold that the government satisfied its burden to prove the interstate commerce element of18 U.S.C. § 922(g).See United States v. Carter,270 F.3d 731,734-35(8th Cir. 2001) (proof that firearm was manufactured in one state and recovered in another satisfies interstate commerce element; evidence was sufficient where firearms expert testified that firearm was manufactured in state other than state in which defendant possessed it). Walker's related jurisdictional argument is also without merit.See UnitedStates v. Rankin,64 F.3d 338,339(8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; § 922(g)(1) "clearly is tied to interstate commerce").
We further conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Walker in accordance with18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (imposing mandatory minimum sentence for armed career criminals). The existence of sentence-enhancing prior convictions need not be found by a jury.See United Statesv. Booker,543 U.S. 220,244,125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621(2005) (any fact other than prior conviction which is necessary to support sentence exceeding maximum authorized by facts established by guilty plea or jury verdict must be admitted by defendant or proved to jury beyond reasonable doubt);Almendarez-Torres v. United States,523 U.S. 224,244-46,118 S.Ct. 1219,140 L.Ed.2d 350(1998) (recidivism, as basis for increasing sentence, need not be charged in indictment and may be subsequently decided by court at sentencing);United States v. Strong,415 F.3d 902,907(8th Cir. 2005) (construingBookeras reaffirming holding inAlmendarez-Torres),cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,126 S.Ct. 1121,163 L.Ed.2d 927(2006).
Finally, we decline to consider Walker's ineffective-assistance arguments on direct appeal.See United States v. Cook,356 F.3d 913,919-20(8th Cir. 2004) (ineffective-assistance claims are generally better left for post-conviction proceedings; such claims are proper on direct appeal only where record has been fully developed, to avoid plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel's ineffectiveness is readily apparent).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
To begin, we hold that the government satisfied its burden to prove the interstate commerce element of18 U.S.C. § 922(g).See United States v. Carter,270 F.3d 731,734-35(8th Cir. 2001) (proof that firearm was manufactured in one state and recovered in another satisfies interstate commerce element; evidence was sufficient where firearms expert testified that firearm was manufactured in state other than state in which defendant possessed it). Walker's related jurisdictional argument is also without merit.See UnitedStates v. Rankin,64 F.3d 338,339(8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; § 922(g)(1) "clearly is tied to interstate commerce").
We further conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Walker in accordance with18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (imposing mandatory minimum sentence for armed career criminals). The existence of sentence-enhancing prior convictions need not be found by a jury.See United Statesv. Booker,543 U.S. 220,244,125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621(2005) (any fact other than prior conviction which is necessary to support sentence exceeding maximum authorized by facts established by guilty plea or jury verdict must be admitted by defendant or proved to jury beyond reasonable doubt);Almendarez-Torres v. United States,523 U.S. 224,244-46,118 S.Ct. 1219,140 L.Ed.2d 350(1998) (recidivism, as basis for increasing sentence, need not be charged in indictment and may be subsequently decided by court at sentencing);United States v. Strong,415 F.3d 902,907(8th Cir. 2005) (construingBookeras reaffirming holding inAlmendarez-Torres),cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,126 S.Ct. 1121,163 L.Ed.2d 927(2006).
Finally, we decline to consider Walker's ineffective-assistance arguments on direct appeal.See United States v. Cook,356 F.3d 913,919-20(8th Cir. 2004) (ineffective-assistance claims are generally better left for post-conviction proceedings; such claims are proper on direct appeal only where record has been fully developed, to avoid plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel's ineffectiveness is readily apparent).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.