895 F.3d 1028
8th Cir.2018Background
- Ernest Lomax and Allen Gaines pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin; both sentenced in district court.
- Lomax received a Guidelines career-offender enhancement, producing a range of 151–188 months; court imposed 151 months + 36 months supervised release.
- Gaines had the same Guidelines range (151–188 months); the court varied downward and sentenced him to 120 months + 36 months supervised release.
- Lomax challenged whether his prior Iowa conviction (Iowa Code § 708.2A(2)(c)) qualifies as a "crime of violence" for the career-offender definition.
- The Government relied on Shepard documents showing Lomax pleaded guilty to domestic-abuse assault "with intent to inflict serious injury" (assault under Iowa Code § 708.1(1)); the court applied the modified categorical approach.
- Gaines argued procedural error (relying on the calculated Guidelines range) and that his 120-month sentence was substantively unreasonable; the court reviewed procedural and substantive reasonableness under Gall/Feemster.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lomax's prior Iowa conviction qualifies as a "crime of violence" for career-offender status | Lomax: conviction lacks an element of physical (violent) force and thus is not a qualifying predicate | Government: Shepard documents show Lomax admitted hitting the victim (assault under § 708.1(1)), which entails violent physical force | Court: Lomax's conviction (assault with intent to inflict serious injury) involves violent physical force and qualifies as a crime of violence; career-offender enhancement proper |
| Whether Gaines's sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable | Gaines: court erred by using career-offender range as a starting point and failed to explain what would have been imposed absent enhancement; sentence substantively unreasonable | Government: court properly calculated Guidelines, considered § 3553(a) factors, explained reasons, and permissibly varied downward | Court: no procedural error; explanation adequate; 120‑month sentence not substantively unreasonable (no abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. LeGrand, 468 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for crime-of-violence predicate)
- United States v. Ossana, 638 F.3d 895 (8th Cir.) (application of categorical/modified-categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (when to apply modified categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (Shepard documents for modified categorical approach)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (definition of "physical force" as violent force)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (standards for substantive-reasonableness review)
- Gonzales v. Duenas–Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (demand for non- fanciful realistic means inquiry)
- United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617 (8th Cir.) (discussion of Iowa assault subsections and force)
- Kelly v. United States, 819 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir.) (discussion of prior Iowa-assault precedent)