United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1599

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Bryan Curtis Odem

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: January 14, 2020

Filed: April 14, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Bryan Curtis Odem pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him to 84

1The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa. 
months’ imprisonment. He appeals the application of a four-level sentencing

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing the firearm in

connection with another felony. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this

court affirms.

In July 2018, Odem, a convicted felon, stole a firearm and transported it on foot

to his fiancee’s home in Newton, Iowa. United States Sentencing Guideline §

2K2.1(b)(6)(B) increases a defendant’s base offense level if the defendant “used or

possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The district court applied the enhancement, concluding

that Odem’s possession of the firearm violated both federal law and Iowa Code §

724.4(1), which provides, in relevant part, “a person who goes armed with a

dangerous weapon . . . within the limits of any city . . . commits an aggravated

misdemeanor.” Iowa Code § 724.4(1).

Odem asserts application of the enhancement is improper “double counting”

because he could not commit the federal crime without committing the state crime

and vice versa. This court reviews the application of the sentencing guidelines de

novo. United States v. Houston, 920 F.3d 1168, 1174 (8th Cir. 2019). As Odem

concedes, this court has rejected his argument. See United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d

449, 452-53 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that when a defendant is convicted of being a

felon in possession of a firearm in a manner that also violates Iowa Code § 724.4(1),

she or he possesses the firearm in connection with another felony offense under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)). This panel is bound by this precedent. See United States

v. Manning, 786 F.3d 684, 686 (8th Cir. 2015) (“A panel of this Court is bound by a

prior Eighth Circuit decision unless that case is overruled by the Court sitting en

banc.”).

The judgment is affirmed.

-2-
GRASZ, Circuit Judge, concurring.

While I agree Odem’s claim of improper “double counting” cannot prevail in

light of United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014), the facts of this case

highlight the need to reconsider Walker. Odem is receiving U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)’s four-level enhancement for no practical reason other than that he

violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) within Newton, Iowa, city limits. See

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); Iowa Code § 724.4(1). Odem is apparently no angel, at

least judging by his past record. Yet, the law should not be applied arbitrarily even

to one whose behavior might seem deserving of a harsh sentence. The facts of this

case help demonstrate the absurd results produced by application of the four-level

base enhancement pursuant to Walker. 

On July 14, 2018, Odem was present at the home of his fiancée in Newton,

Iowa. He was standing outside when he saw Franklin Welcher driving down the

street. Welcher owed money to Odem’s fiancée. Odem motioned to Welcher to pull

into the driveway. An altercation ensued — each accusing the other of starting it. 

Welcher, however, agreed to go home and get the money he owed. He returned with

only $13.00. Not satisfied, Odem then rode with Welcher back to Welcher’s home

to get something that could be held as collateral for the rest of the debt. Welcher gave

Odem a firearm. Odem returned on foot to his fiancée’s home and placed the gun

under a drawer in a dresser.

Meanwhile, Welcher called the police and reported that Odem had “stolen” the

gun. Odem, in his objections to the PSR, expressly objects to any characterization of

the gun as stolen: “that is not true, the alleged victim volunteered to give Defendant

collateral to show his good faith to repay the loan to Defendant’s fiancée; the alleged

victim chose to give Defendant the gun.” In any event, the relevant conduct

implicating Walker is not theft. Rather, it is that Odem violated Iowa’s “carrying

-3-
weapons” law since he walked, however briefly, with his illicit collateral in Newton

city limits to put it in safe keeping.

As the government states in its brief, “Iowa’s carrying weapons law prohibits

walking and driving in city limits with a firearm, subject to certain exceptions not

applicable here.” The government argued that application of the enhancement for

violating the “carrying weapons” law is not double counting, stating, “It was one

thing for Odem to be at his fiancée’s house where he possessed a firearm which could

have arrived there by any number of means, and quite another to walk about town

with it.” Perhaps, but this distinction strikes me as completely divorced from the

goals of the sentencing guidelines.

I maintain the four-level enhancement should not be available in circumstances

where the “act of possessing a firearm in violation of federal law is inextricably

entwined with [the] act of possessing a firearm within city limits in violation of Iowa

law.” United States v. Stuckey, 729 F. App’x 494, 496 (8th Cir. 2018) (unpublished)

(Grasz, J., concurring). Increasing sentences in these circumstances does not further

the purpose of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), and I doubt the sentencing commission

intended this result. Id.

_____________________________

-4-