United States v. Kayne Donath, 107 F.4th 830

Donath pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), after a traffic stop in which he threatened the driver with a concealed firearm and fled from police.
At sentencing, the court calculated his base offense level using prior Iowa state convictions for assaulting correctional officers under Iowa Code § 708.3A(3), applying the "crime of violence" enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).
Donath challenged whether these prior Iowa convictions were "crimes of violence" under the Guidelines, arguing that the statutory definition did not require physical force.
Donath also contested the sentencing court’s decision to reduce his offense level by only two levels (instead of three) for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, arguing he was entitled to an additional reduction for his guilty plea.
The government opposed the third-level reduction, citing Donath’s challenges to the facts underpinning his sentencing enhancements.
The district court ruled against Donath on both points; he appealed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Donath’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether Iowa Code § 708.3A(3) assault is a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines	Not a “crime of violence” as the statute does not require use, attempted use, or threatened use of force	Binding precedent (Hamilton) holds it is a crime of violence; statute requires physical force	Prior panel rule governs; convictions are crimes of violence
Entitlement to three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility	Timely guilty plea and objections were non-frivolous, so third level should apply	Government may withhold motion for third level due to contested facts; only two-level reduction warranted	No right to third-level reduction without government motion; court properly applied only two-level reduction

United States v. Hamilton, 46 F.4th 864 (8th Cir. 2022) (holds Iowa Code § 708.3A(3) is a crime of violence for federal sentencing)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines “physical force” as force capable of causing physical pain or injury)
United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo standard applies to Guideline interpretations)
United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2005) (no right to third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Stinson, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guideline commentary is authoritative unless clearly erroneous)