United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2930

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nethaniah Gordon

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

Submitted: April 12, 2024

Filed: August 5, 2024

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

Nethaniah Gordon pleaded guilty in March 2023 to one count of being a felon

in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He has a prior 2013

conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Deliver in violation of Iowa

Code § 124.401(1)(d). In preparing Gordon’s Presentence Investigation Report

(“PSR”), the United States Probation Office concluded this was a controlled
substance offense under § 2K2.1(a)(1) of the advisory sentencing guidelines, which

provides that an offender’s base offense level is 26: 

if (A) the offense involved a (I) semiautomatic firearm that is capable of

accepting a large capacity magazine; or (ii) firearm that is described in 26

U.S.C. § 5845(a); and (B) the defendant committed any part of the instant

offense subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions of either a

crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

As Gordon also has a prior conviction for a crime of violence,1 the PSR determined

that his base offense level is 26 and applied a four-level increase for use of a firearm

in connection with another felony offense because he violated several Iowa felony

statutes in committing the offense of conviction.2 See § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The PSR

recommended a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See § 3E1.1. 

Gordon is in Criminal History Category III, resulting in an advisory guidelines

sentencing range of 87 to 108 months imprisonment.

Gordon timely objected to the increased base offense level, arguing the Iowa

conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Deliver is not a predicate

controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. At the August 2023 hearing, the

1

In 2021, Gordon was convicted of Assault with Intent to Inflict Serious Injury,

in violation of Iowa Code § 708.2(1). Gordon objected to the characterization in the

PSR of the facts giving rise to that conviction, but did not dispute that the conviction

was for a crime of violence.

2Assault While Using or Displaying a Dangerous Weapon, Iowa Code

§§ 708.1(2)(c) and 708.2(3); Domestic Abuse Assault While Using or Displaying a

Dangerous Weapon, Iowa Code § 708.2A(2)(c); Intimidation with a Dangerous

Weapon, Iowa Code § 708.6; and Harassment, First Degree, Iowa Code § 708.7(2). 

-2-
district court3

 heard brief argument and overruled the objection, concluding that

binding Eighth Circuit law foreclosed Gordon’s argument. The court adopted the

PSR in full and sentenced Gordon to 96 months imprisonment to be followed by three

years of supervised release. Gordon appeals, renewing his argument that his Iowa

marijuana conviction is a not a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines, an

issue we review de novo. See United States v. Henderson, 11 F.4th 713, 716 (8th Cir.

2021), cert. denied. 142 S. Ct. 1696 (2022).

In Henderson, we held that USSG § 4B1.2(b) broadly defines “controlled

substance offense” to include “an offense under . . . state law,” even if the particular

substance underlying the state offense is not controlled under the Controlled

Substances Act. “There is no textual basis to graft a federal law limitation onto [this]

career offender guideline.” 11 F.4th at 718-19. There is a circuit split on this

Guidelines interpretation issue. Id. at 719.4 

The Guidelines question in this case is whether the sentencing court must look

to a substance controlled under state law at the time of a prior state conviction, or at

the time of defendant’s federal sentencing for the offense of conviction. At the time

Gordon was convicted of Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Deliver, the Iowa

3The Honorable C.J. Williams, now Chief Judge of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

4

In Brown v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1195, 1201 (2024), the Supreme Court

recently resolved a different conflict in the circuits -- “whether a state crime

constitutes a ‘serious drug offense’ [that qualifies as a predicate offense under the

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)] if it involved a drug that was on the federal

schedules when the defendant possessed or trafficked in it but was later removed.” 

The Court held the crime qualifies if the state and federal definitions “matched” at the

time of the prior offense, rejecting our contrary conclusion in United States v. Perez,

46 F.4th 691, 698-701 (8th Cir. 2022). Id. at 1203. This would seem to indicate

agreement with our decision in Henderson, but Guidelines and ACCA issues require

distinct analyses. 

-3-
statute defined marijuana to include hemp, which has a lower concentration of

tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) than other cannabis substances. See Iowa Code

§ 124.101(19) (2013). In 2019, the Iowa Legislature amended the law to legalize the

possession of hemp. See Iowa Code § 124.401(6). Hemp is no longer a controlled

substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). 

Therefore, Gordon argues, his prior Iowa conviction is not a controlled substance

offense in determining his base offense level for this offense, invoking the “bedrock”

rule that sentencing courts must use the Guidelines Manual “in effect on the date the

defendant is sentenced.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii).

As Gordon acknowledges, in United States v. Bailey, 37 F.4th 467 (8th Cir.

2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2437 (2023), we rejected this same attempt to

distinguish Henderson. Under the Guidelines, we concluded, we must look at

whether the substance underlying a prior conviction was a controlled substance under

state law at the time of that sentencing, and therefore “prior marijuana convictions

under the hemp-inclusive version of Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d) categorically qualify

as controlled substance offenses.” Id. at 469-70, quoting United States v. Jackson,

No. 20-3684, 2022 WL 303231, at *2 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct.

172 (2022). There is a circuit split on this Guidelines issue as well, but the Supreme

Court has not addressed either issue. 

Gordon acknowledges that Bailey is binding on our panel. He offers several

arguments that Bailey was wrongly decided, but we are bound by our prior panel’s

decision. See United States v. Watkins, 91 F.4th 955, 963 (8th Cir. 2024). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-