United States of America v. Perry Hunter

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1593
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Perry Hunter
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: August 7, 2024
Filed: August 12, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Perry Hunter appeals after he pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm
as a felon, and the district court1 sentenced him as an armed career criminal. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erroneously determined that
two prior felony convictions qualified as predicate offenses for purposes of the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
Upon de novo review, this court concludes that the district court correctly
determined that Hunter’s prior residential burglary and first-degree terroristic
threatening convictions qualified as predicate offenses under the ACCA. See United
States v. Keith, 638 F.3d 851, 852 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review); United States
v. Sims, 933 F.3d 1009, 1013-15 (8th Cir. 2019) (Arkansas residential burglary
statute categorically qualified as violent felony under ACCA); United States v.
Myers, 928 F.3d 763, 767 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying modified categorical approach
and concluding that conviction under provision of Arkansas first-degree terroristic
threatening statute requiring threats “to cause death or serious physical injury”
qualified as ACCA predicate). Contrary to his argument, Hunter’s residential
burglary conviction was an adult conviction and sentence. Cf. United States v. Nash,
627 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir. 2010) (juvenile adjudication resulting in an adult violent-
felony sentence was predicate conviction under ACCA). There is no time limit for
predicate ACCA offenses. See United States v. Rodriguez, 612 F.3d 1049, 1056 (8th
Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument based on age of ACCA predicate offenses). In any
event, even assuming the district court erred in applying the ACCA enhancement,
any error was harmless. The district court made clear at sentencing that it would
have imposed the same sentence without the ACCA classification. See United States
v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir. 2019) (finding harmless error when the
district court indicates it would have alternatively imposed the same sentence even
if a lower guideline range applied).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --