United States v. Brown, No. 18-1426 (8th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 120 month sentence for bank robbery. The court held that defendant's prior Illinois conviction for attempted robbery qualified as a career offender predicate under the force clause of USSC 4B1.2(a)(1). In Dembry v. United States, No. 17-2849, 2019 WL 436580, the court held that Illinois robbery was a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines, and thus Illinois attempted robbery was also a crime of violence.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's Illinois conviction for attempted robbery qualified as a career offender predicate under the force clause of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.2(a)(1) - see Dembry v. U.S., No. 17-2849 (8th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019). [ February 20, 2019

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1426 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Anthony Jovon Brown, also known as Anthony Brown lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 18-1427 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Anthony Jovon Brown, also known as Anthony Brown lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: January 14, 2019 Filed: February 22, 2019 [Published] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Anthony Brown appeals his sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment for bank robbery. He challenges the district court’s1 application of the crime of violence enhancement under the sentencing guidelines, contending that his Illinois attempted robbery conviction does not qualify as a career offender predicate under the guidelines’s force clause. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1). “We review de novo the district court’s determination that a conviction constitutes a crime of violence.” United States v. Williams, 899 F.3d 659, 662 (8th Cir. 2018). We recently held that Illinois robbery is a “violent felony” under the force clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b). Dembry v. United States, No. 17-2849, 2019 WL 436580, at *2-3 (8th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019). “The relevant definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and the definition of a crime of violence under the guidelines are so similar that we generally consider cases interpreting them interchangeably.” United States v. Sykes, 914 F.3d 615, 620 (8th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this logic, we hold that Illinois robbery is a crime of violence under the guidelines. And because Illinois robbery is a crime of violence, so too is Illinois attempted robbery. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) n.1 (noting that a “crime of violence” includes attempts to commit such an offense). This conclusion is consistent with Seventh Circuit decisions, which have “repeatedly held that Illinois robbery is a crime of violence 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- under the ‘force’ clause of § 4B1.2(a)(1).” United States v. Davis, 712 F. App’x 578, 579 (7th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2695 (2018). For these reasons, we affirm Brown’s sentence. ______________________________ -3-

Primary Holding

Defendant's prior Illinois conviction for attempted robbery qualified as a career offender predicate under the force clause of USSC 4B1.2(a)(1).

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.