United States v. Quanathan Ivery ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1964
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff Appellee
v.
Quanathan Naiji Knox Ivery
Defendant Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: January 9, 2023
Filed: March 1, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Quanathan Naiji Knox Ivery pled guilty to one count of being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The
district court1 found Ivery committed the instant offense subsequent to at least two
felony convictions for either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1). With that finding the resulting Guideline range was 110 to
120 months of imprisonment. The district court sentenced Ivery to 110 months.
Ivery argues two marijuana convictions did not qualify as controlled substance
offenses and an assault conviction was not a crime of violence. As we are bound by
Eighth Circuit precedent, we affirm.
Ivery argues two prior convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to
deliver in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(d) do not qualify as controlled substance
offenses because at the time of the convictions, the Iowa definition of marijuana
included hemp. Ivery admits this argument is precluded by Eighth Circuit precedent
which found that “uncontested prior marijuana convictions under the hemp-inclusive
version of Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d) categorically qualified as controlled substance
offenses for the career offender enhancement.” United States v. Bailey, 37 F.4th 467,
470 (8th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “It is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one
panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.” Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d
794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citation omitted).
Ivery next argues his Iowa assault conviction does not qualify as a crime of
violence. It is unnecessary to reach this argument as the two marijuana convictions
trigger the application of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1).
Therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-