United States v. Ronald Houston, No. 22-2663 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Wollman, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The court need not reach the issue of whether defendant's conviction for resisting arrest by force is a crime of violence for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.2(a) because the district court stated that it would impose the same sentence regardless of how it calculated the guidelines range.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2663 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ronald D. Houston, also known as Hassan Blue, also known as Ron Reezy, also known as Ron Ron Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: April 10, 2023 Filed: July 20, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ronald Houston received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Although he claims his prior conviction does not count as a “crime of violence,” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3), we affirm because the district court1 explained that it would have imposed the same sentence anyway. The legal question that Houston wants us to address is whether the felony version of resisting arrest by force, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.150.1, is a “crime of violence,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The answer does not matter, however, because any error was harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); see also United States v. Kemp, 908 F.3d 1138, 1140–41 (8th Cir. 2018). The district court made clear at sentencing that, “regardless of how” it “calculated the [G]uideline[s] range,” Houston would receive the same 120-month sentence. See United States v. Marin, 31 F.4th 1049, 1056 (8th Cir. 2022) (“Incorrect application of the Guidelines is harmless error where the district court specifies the resolution of a particular issue did not affect the ultimate determination of a sentence.” (citation omitted)). It also gave reasons, including the fact that Houston created a “risk of harm to others” and had resisted arrest before. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (explaining that the district court “shall consider . . . the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”). In light of this “alternatively imposed” sentence, United States v. White, 863 F.3d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted), we need not decide the crime-ofviolence question. See United States v. Grimes, 888 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2018). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
