United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1050

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Donquavious Marcellus Davis

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: February 8, 2016

 Filed: July 26, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
The district court sentenced Donquavious Marcellus Davis to 96 months' 1

imprisonment. Davis appeals the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We

affirm.

Davis was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, one count of being a felon in

possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and

924(a)(2). At sentencing, the government sought a four-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Davis conceded that the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement

was applicable under our recent decision in United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449,

453 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that the offense of carrying weapons under Iowa Code

§ 724.4(1) qualified as "another felony offense"). Nevertheless, Davis objected to the

enhancement on the ground that Walker was wrongly decided. The district court

found that Davis possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense and

adjusted Davis's offense level to reflect the four-level enhancement. With the

enhancement, Davis's Guidelines range was 77 to 96 months. Davis moved for a

downward variance to a sentence within the pre-enhanced Guidelines range of 51 to

63 months, largely because of what he deemed the unfair impact of the

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement. The district court refused to vary downward and

sentenced Davis to 96 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, Davis acknowledges that Walker controls, but he wantsto preserve

his right to appeal the correctness of Walker to the en banc court. Davis's objection

is preserved, and he is correct that we are powerless to overrule a prior panel's

decision. See United States v. Reynolds, 116 F.3d 328, 329 (8th Cir. 1997) ("One

panel may not overrule another."). Davis's main argument on appeal isthat the district

court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.

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

1

the Northern District of Iowa. 

-2-
According to Davis, the four-level enhancement distorted the nature of his crime by

causing it to seem more aggravated than it really was.

We review a district court's sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard. United States v. Ford, 705 F.3d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 2013). A sentencing

court's discretion is cabined by the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court

abuses its discretion when: 

1) [it] fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received

significant weight; 2) [it] gives significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor; or 3) [it] considers only the appropriate factors but in

weighing them commits a clear error of judgment.

United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

Where "a sentence imposed is within the advisory guideline range, we typically

accord it a presumption of reasonableness." United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625,

634 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir.

2007)); see also United States v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917, 926 (8th Cir. 2013).

Davis's sentence was within the calculated Guidelines range. Moreover, at the

sentencing hearing, the district court properly made an individualized assessment of

the facts and carefully considered the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Stults,

575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009). After applying the four-level enhancement, the

district court outlined the facts of the offense and addressed Davis's personal history,

characteristics, and criminal history. The court also noted Davis's risk of recidivism

and his risk to the public. The district court considered each of the § 3553(a) factors

after applying the enhancement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

weighing the factors as it did. Accordingly, we affirm Davis's conviction and

sentence.

______________________________

-3-