United States v. Levi Hamilton, 46 F.4th 864

Levi Hamilton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
The presentence report recommended applying the career-offender enhancement (U.S.S.G. §4B1.1) based on two prior Iowa felony convictions: terrorism and assault on a peace officer (Iowa Code §708.3A(3)).
Hamilton objected to treating the assault-on-a-officer conviction as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. §4B1.2 and moved for a downward variant/departure.
The district court applied the career-offender enhancement, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 262–327 months, and sentenced Hamilton to 262 months’ imprisonment.
Hamilton appealed both the career-offender classification and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, addressing (1) whether §708.3A(3) qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause and (2) whether the 262-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Iowa §708.3A(3) (assault on a peace officer) is a "crime of violence" under the §4B1.1 force clause	Hamilton: statute can be violated without physical force (e.g., by insulting/offensive conduct causing mental illness); thus not a categorical crime of violence	Government: statute effectively requires at least threatened physical force; even if alternatives exist, they are means rather than separate divisible crimes	Court: §708.3A(3) is indivisible; under the categorical approach it requires at least threatened physical force; Hamilton failed to show a non-fanciful, non-theoretical way to violate the statute without such force, so it qualifies as a crime of violence
Whether Hamilton's 262-month within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable	Hamilton: court overweighed criminal history and underweighted mitigating factors (upbringing, mental health, substance abuse)	Government: within-Guidelines range; district court considered §3553(a) factors and reasonably weighed them	Court: affirmed; within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable and district court did not abuse its wide discretion

United States v. Tinlin, 20 F.4th 426 (8th Cir. 2021) (describing the force clause of the career-offender guideline)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (divisibility/means-or-elements framework)
United States v. Quigley, 943 F.3d 390 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying categorical approach and treating multi-alternative state provisions as indivisible means)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defining "physical force" as force capable of causing pain or injury)
United States v. Ossana, 638 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding an Arizona assault statute could be violated without violent physical force; distinguished here)
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (requiring defendant to point to cases showing the statute was applied in a nongeneric way where relevant)
United States v. Hollis, 447 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review standard for whether a predicate offense qualifies as a crime of violence)