Summary
affirming district court's holding that a defendant convicted of § 2113 was a career offender and stating "this court has held that commercial burglaries constitute crimes of violence under 4B1.2 because of the serious potential risk of injury to others inherent in the offense"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. HAASOpinion
No. 06-4165.
Submitted: September 4, 2007.
Filed: September 11, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Michelle E. Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
Kevin Charles Cornwell, Stauber Lien, Duluth, MN, for Appellant.
Tracy Lee Shenett, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Tracy Lee Shenett appeals the 151-month prison sentence that the district court imposed following his guilty plea to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Shenett was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 on the basis of his prior Minnesota convictions for second-degree burglary of a liquor store and third-degree burglary of a restaurant. He argues he should not have been classified as a career offender because neither of these offenses were crimes of violence, as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), as neither involved entry of a dwelling or posed a serious risk of potential injury to another person.
The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
As Shenett acknowledges, this court has held that commercial burglaries constitute crimes of violence under section 4B1.2 because of the serious potential risk of injury to others inherent in the offense. See United States v. Hascall, 76 F.3d 902, 904-06 (8th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086, 1087-88 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Blahowski, 324 F.3d 592, 595 (8th Cir. 2003). We are bound to follow this precedent and to affirm. See United States v. Wright, 22 F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1994) (panel of this court is bound by prior Eighth Circuit decision unless prior decision is overruled by this court sitting en banc).
Accordingly, we affirm.