United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-3212

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Duianete Moore

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ 

Submitted: September 21, 2021

Filed: October 14, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Duianete Moore pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1951(a); brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in 
-2- 

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

a career offender and sentenced him to a within-guidelines term of imprisonment of 

264 months. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Moore appeals, asserting the district court 

erred when it used two prior state convictions for crimes committed when he was 16 

years old to deem him a career offender. Moore, although a juvenile, was classified

as an adult for both convictions applying Missouri’s statutory process.

We review de novo whether a defendant qualifies as a career offender. United 

States v. Ojeda-Estrada, 577 F.3d 871, 875 (8th Cir. 2009). For career offender 

purposes, a prior felony conviction includes “[a] conviction for an offense 

committed prior to age eighteen . . . if it is classified as an adult conviction under the 

laws of the jurisdiction in which the defendant was convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 

cmt. n.1. The district court correctly applied the career offender enhancement. See

United States v. McNeil, 90 F.3d 298, 299-300 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding an adult 

conviction at age 17 was a career offender predicate). 

 

We also reject Moore’s constitutional claims. United States v. Trimble, 2 

F.4th 771, 773 (8th Cir. 2021) (de novo review); United States v. Jones, 574 F.3d 

546, 553 (8th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he Eighth Amendment does not prohibit using an adult 

conviction based on juvenile conduct to increase a sentence.”); United States v. 

Webster, 159 F. App’x 134, 136 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (“[D]ue 

process is not implicated merely because [a defendant] committed and was convicted 

of the predicate offense while a juvenile.”); United States v. Doxey, 833 F.3d 692, 

710 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[E]very court . . . has rejected the argument . . . that a 

defendant’s career offender status violates equal protection guarantees, insofar as 

the predicate offenses include state convictions obtained before the defendant was 

eighteen years old.” (collecting cases)). Finally, Moore waived the argument that 

the commentary impermissibly expands the scope of the career offender guideline. 

1

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Missouri.
-3- 

See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Claims not raised in an 

opening brief are deemed waived.”). 

 We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________