United States v. Sharrod Dace
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21394
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dace pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms after police found seven guns at his residence following a high-speed chase and search.
- At sentencing the district court treated a prior Missouri second-degree robbery conviction as a "crime of violence" under USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1), leading to a § 2K2.1(a)(4) enhancement.
- The enhancement raised Dace’s advisory Guidelines range to 46–57 months; the court varied upward and imposed 75 months.
- Dace objected that Missouri second-degree robbery does not categorically require violent force and thus is not a § 4B1.2(a)(1) crime of violence.
- The district court stated it would have imposed the same 75‑month sentence even if it had sustained Dace’s Guidelines objections, relying on § 3553(a) factors (danger to public, violent criminal history, deterrence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri second-degree robbery is a "crime of violence" under USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1) for § 2K2.1 enhancement | Dace: Missouri second‑degree robbery lacks an element of violent force and thus does not qualify | Government: The prior robbery conviction qualified as a crime of violence for enhancement | Court: Error to treat the Missouri conviction as a § 4B1.2(a)(1) crime of violence (following controlling precedent) |
| Whether the Guidelines calculation error requires resentencing (harmlessness) | Dace: Incorrect Guidelines range was preserved; error affected his substantial rights | Government: The error is harmless because the district court would have imposed the same sentence based on § 3553(a) factors | Court: Harmless error — district court gave a detailed explanation and stated it would have imposed the same 75‑month sentence absent the enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (discusses categorical approach to "violent force" in defining crimes of violence)
- United States v. Spikes, 543 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2008) (government bears burden to show Guidelines error was harmless)
- United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2016) (harmless-error review where defendant preserved Guidelines challenge)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (district court explanation can render Guidelines miscalculation harmless if sentence rests on independent factors)
- United States v. Icaza, 492 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (remand where district court explanation for alternative sentence was insufficient)
- United States v. Mulverhill, 833 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2016) (remand when district court gave no indication it would impose same sentence under a different Guidelines calculation)
- United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221 (8th Cir. 2015) (example of harmless error where court indicated alternative sentence would be the same)