## 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Filed: February 1, 2021 [Unpublished]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, BENT ON, 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 court 1

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 c ourt 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 c ourt held that “the Iowa

offen se 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,

45 1- 53 (8th Cir. 2 014)

. Grandberry does not contest that Walker controls this case.

Rather, he ask s this panel to over rule 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 F ed. Appx. 721 , 722

- 23 (8th Cir. 2019) ( applying Walker to uphold

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

(same).

Grandberry challenges the substantive reasonableness of his within

guidelines 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 consider ed 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 20 06, 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 def endants 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.

______________________________