United States of America v. Clarence L. Woolsoncroft

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3919
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Clarence L. Woolsoncroft
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: June 22, 2022
Filed: June 27, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Clarence Woolsoncroft received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded
guilty to being a felon and unlawful drug user in possession of firearms and
ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). In an Anders brief,
counsel challenges the offense-level calculation. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief urges us to vacate on the ground that

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Woolsoncroft believed his civil rights had been restored. See Rehaif v. United States,
139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019).
We conclude that the district court1 did not clearly err when it applied the
challenged enhancements, see United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir.
2015), nor when it denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, see United
States v. Davis, 875 F.3d 869, 875 (8th Cir. 2017). There is also no evidence that
his past felony has been “expunged,” or that his “civil rights” have been restored.
See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B); see also United States v. Crumble, 965 F.3d 642, 645
(8th Cir. 2020).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel
permission to withdraw.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 2 --