United States v. Donarius Kincaid, No. 09-3971 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. Conviction for interference with official acts causing bodily injury is a crime of violence under Guidelines section 4B1.2(a)(1).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3971 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Donarius Kincaid, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 23, 2010 Filed: October 8, 2010 ___________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Donarius Kincaid pleaded guilty to one count of possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a), 5861(d), and 5871. At sentencing, the district court1 determined that Kincaid had committed two prior "crimes of violence." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a). Thus, in its application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the district court determined that the appropriate base offense level was twenty-six. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1). After 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. considering Kincaid's criminal history and adjusting the offense level to twenty-five, the district court imposed a sentence of 120 months' imprisonment, which was within the advisory guideline sentencing range. The only issue on appeal is whether Kincaid's 2005 conviction for interference with official acts causing bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code § 719.1(1), is a crime of violence. The district court ruled that it was. We recently held in United States v. Malloy that a conviction for interference with official acts causing bodily injury in violation of section 719.1(1) is a crime of violence pursuant to § 4B1.2(a)(1) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Malloy, Nos. 09-2618, 09-2619, 2010 WL 3061922, at *5 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2010). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -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.
