Summary
In UnitedStates v. Ossana, 607 Fed.Appx. 599 (8th Cir. 2015) (Ossana III), the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed is previous decision that Ossana's crime was a crime of violence, holding that: "We addressed the classification of the same Arizona conviction in depth in Ossana II, and Ossana raises no new evidence nor arguments to cast doubt upon our prior holding or require a different result.
Summary of this case from Ossana v. United StatesOpinion
No. 14-3122
06-11-2015
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Timothy G. Ossana Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau [Unpublished] Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Following a prior felon-in-possession conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Timothy G. Ossana twice appealed a crime-of-violence determination under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). In United States v. Ossana (Ossana I), 638 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2011), we held the initial federal sentencing record insufficient to determine whether a prior Arizona aggravated assault conviction qualified as a crime of violence. The underlying Arizona statute was overinclusive and the record did not establish which subpart of the statute supported Ossana's conviction. On remand, the district court expanded the record, applied the modified categorical approach, and found the Arizona conviction qualified as a crime of violence. We affirmed. See United States v. Ossana (Ossana II), 679 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2012).
After Ossana served his term of incarceration for that initial 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction, authorities again discovered him in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty in the present case to another § 922(g)(1) violation and, again, argued that the same underlying Arizona conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence. The district court rejected the argument and sentenced him pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Ossana appeals.
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Ossana does not rely upon newly developed law nor does he point to a state-court record different from that presented in Ossana II. We addressed the classification of the same Arizona conviction in depth in Ossana II, and Ossana raises no new evidence nor arguments to cast doubt upon our prior holding or require a different result. The district court in the present case properly determined that the Arizona conviction qualifies as a crime of violence.
Ossana cites Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), but does not explain how it changes the analysis from that employed in Ossana II. Having reviewed Descamps, we do not find that it requires a different result in this appeal.
--------
We affirm the judgment of the district court.