## 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Submitted: September 21, 2021 Filed: October 14, 2021 [Unpublished]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, an d 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 court 1 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 29 8, 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Webster , 159 F. App’x 134, 136 (1 1 th Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (“ [D]ue

pr ocess 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 offense s 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) (“C laims not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived.” )

.

W e affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________