U.S. v. Shinners, 89-5265
| Citation | 892 F.2d 742 |
| Decision Date | 26 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-5265,89-5265 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Phillip SHINNERS, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Deborah Ellis, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
Joseph T. Walbran, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant John Phillip Shinners, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Supp. V 1987) and was sentenced to a term of sixty months pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Appellant argues that he should not have been sentenced under the aggravated assault provision of the Guidelines and that the District Court 1 incorrectly assigned him three criminal history points for a prior drug offense conviction. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §§ 2A2.2 & App. C, amends. 85 & 86, 4A1.1(a) (Nov.1989) (hereinafter "U.S.S.G.").
On October 28, 1988, Shinners was in a Rainbow Foods store in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A store employee saw appellant acting suspiciously and suspected him of shoplifting. Three store employees followed Shinners to the parking lot and tried to apprehend him as he entered his car. Appellant struggled with the first employee who attempted to stop him and a second employee grabbed appellant from behind. Shinners then pulled a Colt .357 magnum revolver from inside his car and continued to struggle with the store employees. During the scuffle, the revolver discharged into the air. Shinners shouted, "I will kill you, you son of a bitch," although it is disputed whether he yelled this while brandishing the firearm or after he was wrestled to the ground and disarmed.
Section 2K2.1 of the Guidelines sets out the base offense level for the illegal possession of a firearm and further provides that "[i]f the defendant used the firearm in committing or attempting another offense, apply the guideline in respect to such other offense." U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1) & App. C, amend. 189. The District Court found that Shinners's conduct constituted aggravated assault and sentenced him under the appropriate Guidelines provision, section 2A2.2. Appellant's base offense level was fifteen, plus a five-level increase because the firearm discharged during the assault.
When an application of the Guidelines is at issue, this Court accepts the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(d) (Supp. V 1987). After a careful review of the factual findings of the District Court, we are convinced that it was not clearly erroneous to conclude that appellant's conduct constituted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Corbin, 92-1459
...Perez, 897 F.2d 751, 752-53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 865, 111 S.Ct. 177, 112 L.Ed.2d 141 (1990); United States v. Shinners, 892 F.2d 742, 743 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam). Cf. United States v. Cherif, 943 F.2d 692, 702-03 (7th Cir.1991) (although defendant had been convicted of mai......
-
U.S. v. Lewis
...U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.2, comment. (n. 2); see also United States v. DePriest, 6 F.3d 1201, 1215 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Shinners, 892 F.2d 742, 743-44 (8th Cir.1989); United States v. Altman, 901 F.2d 1161, 1166 (2d Cir.1990). Here, the court had sentenced Starks to five months, well o......
-
U.S. v. DePriest
...served is used to determine whether the sentence is included in a defendant's criminal history category"); United States v. Shinners, 892 F.2d 742, 743-44 (8th Cir.1989) (holding that criminal history points based on defendant's thirty-month sentence and not on the five months actually serv......
-
U.S. v. Tabaka
...States v. Davis, 929 F.2d 930, 932-33 (3d Cir.1991); United States v. Altman, 901 F.2d 1161, 1166 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Shinners, 892 F.2d 742, 743-44 (8th Cir.1989). In none of those cases, however, was the sentence suspended and, consequently, the courts did not consider the app......