United States v. Christopher McGee, 890 F.3d 730

Christopher McGee pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
The PSR set a base offense level 22, total offense level 31, and criminal history VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 188–235 months; the district court varied to CHC V and sentenced to 168 months.
At sentencing the court imposed three enhancements based on the March 21, 2016 incident: +2 for possession of three or more firearms (U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(1)(A)), +2 for use of a minor to assist (U.S.S.G. §3B1.4), and +4 for possession in connection with another felony (U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(6)(B)).
Key witness Amber Andrews originally testified at sentencing about the March 21 events; her ATF interview was later disclosed and the case was remanded for cross-examination and resentencing.
The district court, after cross-examining Andrews at the remand hearing, again found her testimony credible and reimposed the three enhancements and the 168-month sentence.
On appeal McGee challenged (1) the credibility-based factual findings supporting the three enhancements, (2) the district court’s grant of a brief continuance when Andrews missed a hearing, and (3) the application of base offense level 22 based on a prior Iowa conviction for Assault While Displaying a Dangerous Weapon.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McGee)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Credibility of Andrews’ testimony supporting three enhancements	Andrews’ testimony was inconsistent, unreliable, and uncorroborated, so enhancements were not supported	District court observed testimony directly, found Andrews credible, supporting enhancements	Court affirmed: credibility findings not clearly erroneous; enhancements upheld
Continuance of resentencing when Andrews missed March hearing	Granting continuance abused discretion and prejudiced McGee	Continuance was brief, reasonable, defense did not object, and witness later appeared	Issue waived; in any event no abuse of discretion and no plain error
Base offense level 22 based on prior Iowa conviction (Assault While Displaying a Dangerous Weapon)	Post-Mathis, Iowa assault subsections are alternative means; conviction may not categorically be a crime of violence	Section 708.2(3) (use/display of dangerous weapon during assault) makes the offense categorically a threatened use of force	Court affirmed: the prior conviction is a crime of violence under the force clause; base level 22 proper
Harmlessness of any Guidelines miscalculation	Any Guidelines error required resentencing or vacatur	District court stated it would impose the same 168-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) regardless of Guidelines scoring	Any error as to Guidelines scoring was harmless because the court expressly adopted an alternative §3553(a) rationale

United States v. Lyons, 556 F.3d 703 (8th Cir.) (standards of review for sentencing findings) (cited for review standards)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (statutory alternatives as elements/means framework) (governs divisible vs. indivisible statute analysis)
United States v. Maid, 772 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir.) (holding Iowa Assault While Displaying a Dangerous Weapon categorically a crime of violence) (controls in this circuit)
United States v. Boots, 816 F.3d 971 (8th Cir.) (reaffirming Maid) (supports categorical treatment of Iowa offense)
United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784 (8th Cir.) (displaying an operational weapon is a threatened use of force) (supports force-clause analysis)
United States v. Dace, 842 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir.) (harmless error when district court bases sentence on §3553(a) factors independent of Guidelines) (applies harmless-error principle cited)
United States v. Molina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (appellate review guidance on harmless Guidelines error) (framework for harmlessness)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for waiver and plain-error review) (cited for procedural default/waiver)