United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1958

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Edward Adney

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: November 4, 2014

Filed: November 7, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

David Edward Adney directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a motion to withdraw. After careful review,

we affirm.

The district court did not err in applying a 4-level enhancement for possessing

the firearms in connection with another felony offense, as the record showed that the

firearms facilitated or had the potential to facilitate Adney’s commission ofthe felony

offense of harassment in the first degree. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) & comment.

(n.14); United States v. Betts, 509 F.3d 441, 445 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of

district court’s application of Guidelines, and clear-error review of its factual

findings); Iowa Code §§ 708.7.2, 903.1.2 (harassment in first degree; 0-2 year prison

sentence). The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s

motion for an upward departure, as Adney’s 15 unscored adult convictions--many of

which involved violence orthreats thereof--provided an adequate basis for departure,

and the court stated adequate reasons for the extent of the departure. See United

States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 605-06 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review; district

court may take into account evidence of obvious incorrigibility and may conclude that

past leniency has not been effective); United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654,

657-58 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding no error in upward departure, as defendant’s multiple

unscored convictions for assaults, threats, and assaulting officer indicated that he was

dangerous to others and had strong likelihood of recidivism). Finally, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Adney at the top of his amended

Guidelines range, as the court provided a detailed explanation of its sentence,

emphasizing Adney’s violent and abusive history, and the dangerous, potentially fatal

circumstances of this offense. See Gonzalez, 573 F.3d at 605, 607 (standard of

review); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(substantive review is narrow and deferential to sentencing court).

An independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

-2-
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted.

______________________________

-3-