United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-1329

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Larenzo Marshan Grandberry

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ 

Submitted: January 11, 2021

 Filed: February 1, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Larenzo Marshan Grandberry pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

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

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Iowa.
-2- 

sentenced him to 84 months in prison. He appeals his sentence. Having jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Grandberry objects to the district court’s four-level enhancement under 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection with another 

felony offense. This court reviews application of the sentencing guidelines de novo

and factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Houston, 920 F.3d 1168, 

1174 (8th Cir. 2019). In United States v. Walker, this court held that “the Iowa 

offense for carrying weapons in violation of Iowa Code § 724.4(1) constitutes 

another felony offense for purposes of Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).” United States 

v. Miller, 795 Fed. Appx. 980, 980 (8th Cir. 2020), citing Walker, 771 F.3d 449, 

451-53 (8th Cir. 2014). Grandberry does not contest that Walker controls this case. 

Rather, he asks this panel to overrule it. This court has consistently applied Walker, 

and this panel is bound by it. See United States v. Manning, 786 F.3d 684, 686 (8th 

Cir. 2015) (“A panel of this Court is bound by a prior Eighth Circuit decision unless 

that case is overruled by the Court sitting en banc.”). See also United States v. 

Burnett, 771 Fed. Appx. 721, 722-23 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying Walker to uphold 

enhancement); United States v. Stuckey, 729 Fed. Appx. 494, 495 (8th Cir. 2018) 

(same). 

Grandberry challenges the substantive reasonableness of his withinguidelines sentence. He argues the court failed to account for mitigating 

circumstances he believes warrant a downward variance. This court reviews for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Dengler, 695 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2012). 

The record shows the court fully considered the § 3553(a) factors and the request for 

a variance. Imposing the sentence, the court said:

In fashioning an appropriate sentence, I have considered each of the 

factors found in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), which 

means I have considered the nature and circumstances of this offense 

as well as the history and characteristics of Mr. Grandberry.
-3- 

I have considered the seriousness of the offense. This is obviously the 

offense in a more aggravated form by reason of his flight and resistance 

and the presence of a firearm did make the events of that day more 

dangerous.

In examining the question of just punishment, I note drug convictions 

in 2007, three of them, harassment of a public official in 2006, a 

carrying weapons charge in 2006, burglary in 2008, another one in 

2011, problems on supervision, unlawful possession of a controlled 

substance in 2016, fleeing and attempting to elude a peace officer in 

2015, battery in 2016, theft in 2017, resisting a peace officer in 2016, 

and there are more, domestic abuse, aggravated fleeing, those are all of

concern to the Court, especially in the context of a felon in possession 

of a firearm. 

I have considered the need for adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, 

the need to protect the public from further crimes from the defendant is 

real. I have looked to the Sentencing Guidelines as an important, 

though not in any way controlling factor to be considered. I have 

weighed heavily the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity 

among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct. I have considered the matters we discussed at sidebar

as reflective of remorse.

After considering all those factors, I conclude that the following 

sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to address the 

essential sentencing considerations.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Anderson, 618 

F.3d 873, 883 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The district court may give some factors less weight 

than a defendant prefers or more to other factors but that alone does not justify 

reversal.”).

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________