United States v. Allan Arceo, No. 18-3601 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Chief Judge Smith, Gruender, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentence. District court did not err in applying four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. This case is controlled by United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014), holding that violation of Iowa Code section 724.4(1) constitutes "another felony offense" for purposes of Guidelines sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)enhancement.
Download PDF
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Court for the Northern District of Iowa – Waterloo ____________ Submitted: October 14, 2019 Filed: November 25, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.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-
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.
