United States v. Dwight Rhodes ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-3931
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the Eastern
    * District of Missouri.
    Dwight Rhodes,                          *
    *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 28, 2005
    Filed: November 3, 2005
    ___________
    Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Dwight Rhodes challenges the district court's1 judgment and sentence, entered
    after a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation
    of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). For reversal, Mr. Rhodes argues (1) the district court erred
    in admitting his prior convictions into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence
    404(b); and (2) his sentence – imposed under a mandatory Guidelines system –
    violates the Sixth Amendment. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    Any error in the admission of Mr. Rhodes's past convictions was rendered
    harmless by the district court's limiting instruction. See Francis v. Franklin, 
    471 U.S. 307
    , 324 n.9 (1985) (except in extraordinary circumstances, court assumes jurors
    follow instructions); United States v. Lothridge, 
    332 F.3d 502
    , 504 (8th Cir. 2003)
    (limiting instruction cured any unfair prejudice caused by introduction of prior
    convictions under Rule 404(b)). Similarly, any error in treating the Guidelines as
    mandatory was also harmless, because the district court indicated that it would have
    imposed the same sentence even if the Guidelines were not mandatory, see United
    States v. Thompson, 
    403 F.3d 533
    , 536 (8th Cir. 2005), and it sentenced Mr. Rhodes
    near the top of the applicable Guidelines range, see United States v. Perez-Ramirez,
    
    415 F.3d 876
    , 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding error harmless where district court "left
    unused some of its discretion to sentence [defendant] to a more favorable sentence
    under the mandatory, pre-Booker guidelines").
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-