United States v. Allan Arceo ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-3601
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Allan Arceo
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa – Waterloo
    ____________
    Submitted: October 14, 2019
    Filed: November 25, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Allan Arceo pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His presentence investigation
    report included a four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection
    with another felony offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Arceo objected to the
    enhancement. The district court 1 overruled the objection and calculated a total
    offense level of 17, a criminal history category of IV, and an advisory sentencing
    guidelines range of 37 to 46 months. The district court sentenced Arceo to 37
    months’ imprisonment.
    Arceo argues on appeal that the district court erred in applying the four-level
    enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense
    because his possession of a firearm “merely facilitated another firearm possession
    offense.” See Iowa Code § 724.4(1). He claims the enhancement is meant to address
    “additional conduct that is somehow aided or advanced by a defendant’s firearm
    possession.” We review a district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines
    de novo. United States v. Johnson, 
    846 F.3d 1249
    , 1250 (8th Cir. 2017).
    Arceo concedes that his argument is controlled by our decision in United
    States v. Walker, 
    771 F.3d 449
    (8th Cir. 2014). In Walker, we held that a violation
    of Iowa Code section 724.4(1), as here, constitutes “another felony offense” for
    purposes of a § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 
    enhancement. 771 F.3d at 452-53
    . We thus affirm
    the district court’s sentence. See United States v. Manning, 
    786 F.3d 684
    , 686 (8th
    Cir. 2015) (“A panel of this Court is bound by a prior Eighth Circuit decision unless
    that case is overruled by the Court sitting en banc.”).
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-3601

Filed Date: 11/25/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/25/2019