Court Opinion

ID: 9410097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 15:01:25.089361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.419935
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-2663
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

 Ronald D. Houston, also known as Hassan Blue, also known as Ron Reezy, also
                             known as Ron Ron

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: April 10, 2023
                               Filed: July 20, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Ronald Houston received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty
to possessing a firearm as a felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Although he claims
his prior conviction does not count as a “crime of violence,” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3),
we affirm because the district court1 explained that it would have imposed the same
sentence anyway.

       The legal question that Houston wants us to address is whether the felony
version of resisting arrest by force, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.150.1, is a “crime of
violence,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The answer does not matter, however, because any
error was harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); see also United States v. Kemp, 908
F.3d 1138, 1140–41 (8th Cir. 2018).

       The district court made clear at sentencing that, “regardless of how” it
“calculated the [G]uideline[s] range,” Houston would receive the same 120-month
sentence. See United States v. Marin, 31 F.4th 1049, 1056 (8th Cir. 2022)
(“Incorrect application of the Guidelines is harmless error where the district court
specifies the resolution of a particular issue did not affect the ultimate determination
of a sentence.” (citation omitted)). It also gave reasons, including the fact that
Houston created a “risk of harm to others” and had resisted arrest before. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (explaining that the district court “shall consider . . . the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”).
In light of this “alternatively imposed” sentence, United States v. White, 863 F.3d
1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted), we need not decide the crime-of-
violence question. See United States v. Grimes, 888 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2018).

      We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
                     ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
                                     -2-