## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 22

- 1417

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Darren M. McDonald

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

____________

Submitted: November 14, 2022 Filed: February 16, 2023 [U npublished ]

____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Darren M. McDonald pled guilty to unlawfully possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with the intent to distribute

, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)

, and unlawfully-2- possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1). T he district court 1

sentenced McDonald to 43 months of imprisonment.

McDonald appeals, arguing the district court miscalculated the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range from which it based its sentence.
McDonald specifically contend s the district court wrongly determined his base offense level by concluding his past conviction under M issouri Revised Stat ute § 57 1 .03 0 .1(4) w as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the Guidelines

.

Section 571.030.1(4) makes it a crime to “knowingly . . . [e]xhibit[], in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of le th al use in an angry or threatening manner . . . .” McDonald maintains that because a person could be convicted for violating this Missouri statute without intending to injur e or threaten another person, it does not have “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force” as necessary to be considered a crime of violence as defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1). Our precedent has long held otherwise. See United
States v. Pulliam , 566 F.3d 784, 78 7–8 8 (8 th Cir. 2009) (holding Mo. Rev. Stat. § 57 1 .03 0 .1(4) is a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act) ; United States v. Hudson , 851 F.3d 807, 808

– 10 (8 th Cir. 2017) (holding the same Missouri offense is a “crime of violence” as defined by § 4B1.2 of the Guidelines ).

In Pulliam , w e explained “displaying an operational weapon before another in an angry or threatening manner qualifies as threatened use of physical force against another person.” 566 F.3d at 788. Under this same rationale, we later held
a conviction under th is Missouri statute qualified as a crime of violence for purposes
of the Guidelines

. See Hudson , 851 F.3d at 808

– 10. McDonald argues Pulliam and
Hudson no longer control in light of the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Borden
v. United States , 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1833 (2021) (plurality opinion). According to McDonald, Borden established that the “use of force” definition excludes state

1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sipp el , then Chief Judge, now United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.-3- crimes defined by the creation of risks of injury not requir ing an intentional design
to cause harm to another person

. We previously rejected a similar characterization
of the case , explaining th at “[w]hen the plurality and concurring opinions are read together, . . . Borden holds only that the force clause categorically excludes offenses that can be committed recklessly .” United States v. Larry , 51 F.4 th 290, 292 (8 th Cir. 2022) . Because Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4) “plainly requires that the crime be committed with knowledge [,] . . . . Borden ’s holding . . . does not affect our circuit precedent [.]” Id. We are bound to follow this precedent and thus affirm the judgment of the district court. See id.

______________________________