# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1156

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Cleo Dominique Miller lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

____________ Submitted: November 11, 2019 Filed: March 2, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Cleo Dominique Miller possessed a loaded firearm when he was arrested in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Miller pleaded guilty to the state offense of carrying weapon s, in violation of Iowa Code § 724.4(1). A federal grand jury later charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and924(a)(2). Miller pleaded guilty to the federal offense. Varying downward from th e

advisory Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months, the district court 1 sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment. Miller argues that the district court erred in applying the sentencing enhancement for using or possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). He contends that the enhancement does not apply when the underlying offense is essentially iden tical to the federal offense, but rather applies only when the firearm possession aids o r advances separate conduct. We rejected this argument in United States v. Wal ker, 771 F.3d 449, 451-53 (8th Cir. 2014), which held that the Iowa offense for carryin g weapons in violation of Iowa Code § 724.4(1) constitutes another felony offen se for purposes of Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Walker controls here, and we thus conclude that the district court properly applied the enhancement. 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 Co urt sitting en banc.” (quoting United States v. Wright, 22 F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1994))). Miller also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He cl aims that the district court gave undue weight to the circumstances of the offens e and his history of domestic violence, while giving inadequate weight to his positive fam ily relationships and his cooperation during the arrest. We conclude that t he district court did not commit a clear error of judgment in deciding the weight to accord the sentencing factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009 ) (en banc) (“A district court abuses its discretion when it . . . considers o nly the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgm ent.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also United States v. King, 898

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weig h mitigating

factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The sentence is t hus not substantively unreasonable. The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-