United States of America v. Curtis Lee Wordes

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2895
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Curtis Lee Wordes
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge
____________
Submitted: March 19, 2018
Filed: May 21, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Curtis Wordes directly appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm and was sentenced to the statutory maximum prison term. In

-- 1 of 2 --

calculating the Guidelines range, the district court increased the base offense level1
based on its determination that Wordes had two qualifying prior felony convictions
for crimes of violence. The court stated that if the prior felony convictions did not
qualify, it would nevertheless vary upward to the same sentence. Wordes’s counsel
has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred by concluding that the prior felony
convictions were crimes of violence, and that the court’s alternative upward variance
resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence.
We conclude that any arguable error in calculating the Guidelines range was
harmless in light of the district court’s statements at the sentencing hearing that it
would have varied upward to the same sentence in any event. See Molina-Martinez
v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016) (noting that error in miscalculating
Guidelines range may be harmless where record demonstrates that district court
thought sentence it chose was appropriate irrespective of Guidelines range); United
States v. LaRoche, 700 F.3d 363, 365 (8th Cir. 2012) (misapplication of Guidelines
is harmless error if district court would have imposed same sentence). We also
conclude that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v.
Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance is reasonable where
court makes individualized assessment of sentencing factors based on facts presented,
and considers defendant’s proffered information).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern1
District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --