United States v. Cody Rethford, 85 F.4th 895

Cody Rethford pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
The PSR treated his 2013 Missouri second-degree robbery conviction as a "crime of violence," recommending a base offense level of 20 under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).
The district court overruled Rethford’s objection, adopted the PSR, and sentenced him to 72 months’ imprisonment (within a 63–78 month advisory range).
Rethford appealed, arguing his prior Missouri second-degree robbery conviction (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.030.1, as in effect in 2013) is not a "crime of violence" under USSG § 4B1.2(a), under either the force clause or the enumerated-offenses clause.
The Eighth Circuit applied the categorical approach and, relying on controlling circuit precedent (notably Swopes and Gordon), held the prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines’ force clause and affirmed.

Issue	Rethford's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Missouri second-degree robbery is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines’ force clause (USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1))	Swopes was wrongly decided; after Taylor, an implicit (noncommunicated) threat cannot satisfy the force clause	Eighth Circuit precedent (Swopes, Gordon) establishes Missouri second-degree robbery involves a communicated threat (verbal or nonverbal) and qualifies under the force clause	Affirmed: conviction is a crime of violence under the force clause
Whether Missouri second-degree robbery is a crime of violence under the enumerated-offenses clause	State statute is broader than the generic federal definition of robbery, so it does not match the enumerated offense	Government did not need to press this because the force-clause finding sufficed	Not decided (unnecessary because force-clause ruling controls)
Whether any Guidelines error was harmless because the district court would impose same sentence absent the Guidelines	(Implicit) if Guidelines analysis is wrong, sentence should be vacated	Government argues harmlessness and that district court would have imposed the same sentence	Not addressed (court declined to decide because force-clause ruling resolved the appeal)

United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (held Missouri second-degree robbery is a violent felony under the ACCA force clause)
United States v. Gordon, 69 F.4th 932 (8th Cir. 2023) (applied Swopes post-Taylor and held Taylor does not undermine conviction for completed Missouri second-degree robbery)
United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022) (Supreme Court ruling that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the force clause because it need not involve a communicated threat)
Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (explained categorical approach to determining whether a prior offense is a crime of violence)
United States v. Martin, 15 F.4th 878 (8th Cir. 2021) (noted close similarity between the Guidelines’ crime-of-violence definition and the ACCA violent-felony definition)
United States v. Parker, 929 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2019) (reiterated panel precedent binds subsequent panels)
Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (confirmed the rule that one panel is bound by prior panel decisions)