United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1156

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cleo Dominique Miller

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - 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[Unpublished]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 weapons,

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) and
924(a)(2). Miller pleaded guilty to the federal offense. Varying downward from the

advisory Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months, the district court1 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 identical to

the federal offense, but rather applies only when the firearm possession aids or

advances separate conduct. We rejected this argument in United States v. Walker,

771 F.3d 449, 451-53 (8th Cir. 2014), which held that the Iowa offense for carrying

weapons in violation of Iowa Code § 724.4(1) constitutes another felony offense 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 Court 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 claims

that the district court gave undue weight to the circumstances of the offense and his

history of domestic violence, while giving inadequate weight to his positive family

relationships and his cooperation during the arrest. We conclude that the 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 only the

appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.”

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also United States v. King, 898

1The 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 weigh mitigating

factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.”

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The sentence is thus not

substantively unreasonable. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-