United States v. Tyrone Parrow, 844 F.3d 801

Defendant Tyrone Parrow pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and was sentenced to 77 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
The district court applied a base offense level of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), treating Parrow’s prior Iowa conviction for Domestic Abuse–Strangulation (Iowa Code § 708.2A(2)(d)) as a “crime of violence.”
The court also imposed a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm “in connection with another felony,” relying on Iowa’s concealed-carry statute, Iowa Code § 724.4(1), as the “other felony.”
Parrow appealed both rulings: (1) he did not object below to the base-level calculation (reviewed for plain error); and (2) he objected to the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement (reviewed de novo).
The Eighth Circuit analyzed the categorical approach (and Mathis divisibility principles) to determine whether the Iowa strangulation offense necessarily involves violent (physical) force, and addressed whether the Iowa concealed-carry offense falls outside Note 14(C)’s firearms-possession exclusion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Parrow)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Parrow’s prior conviction for Domestic Abuse–Strangulation qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A)	The statute’s alternative means (throat/neck pressure or obstructing nose/mouth) might be non-divisible or not necessarily require violent force; thus it may not categorically be a crime of violence	The offense’s elements (domestic assault plus knowingly impairing breathing or circulation) necessarily involve violent force capable of causing physical injury, so it is a crime of violence	The court held the statute is not divisible for elements analysis and the offense is categorically a crime of violence; base level 20 was proper (plain-error review)
Whether a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applies because Parrow possessed the firearm "in connection with another felony" (Iowa concealed-carry offense)	Parrow argued the Iowa concealed-carry offense should be treated as excluded or not a separate qualifying felony under Note 14(C)	The government relied on controlling Eighth Circuit precedent holding Iowa § 724.4(1) is not excluded by Note 14(C) because one can be a felon-in-possession under federal law without committing the state concealed-carry offense	The court applied controlling precedent (Walker) and affirmed the four-level enhancement (de novo review)

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (interpreting "physical force" as violent force)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (divisibility/means vs. elements analysis)
United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (holding offenses involving bodily injury include violent force)
United States v. Rice, 813 F.3d 704 (elements analysis applying Castleman to similar offenses)
United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (holding Iowa concealed-carry statute is not excluded by Note 14(C))
United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884 (plain-error review principles for Guidelines issues)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (en banc standards on plain-error review)
United States v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546 (domestic choking/strangulation as crime of violence)