United States v. Daevone Brown, No. 18-3105 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) - see U.S. v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3105 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Daevone Rashad Brown lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: September 5, 2019 Filed: September 10, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Daevone Brown appeals after he pled guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated United 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting the district court erred in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), based on Brown’s possession of a firearm in connection with another offense, namely, carrying weapons in violation of Iowa Code § 724.4(1). We conclude the district court properly applied the enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing application of Guidelines de novo, and findings of fact for clear error); United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449, 452-53 (8th Cir. 2014) (affirming application of enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) to felon in possession of firearm, who possessed firearm in connection with violation of § 724.4(1)). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
