Court Opinion

ID: 9392574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 16:01:05.829221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.703859
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3327
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                               Colique Depree Brown

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                   ____________

                              Submitted: May 2, 2023
                                Filed: May 5, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Colique Brown appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

      1
       The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging two sentencing
enhancements and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

       On de novo review, see United States v. Nyah, 35 F.4th 1100, 1109 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 389 (2022), we conclude the district court did not err by
applying a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing
the firearm in connection with another felony offense, specifically Interference with
Official Acts with a Firearm under Iowa Code § 719.1(1)(a), (f). Although Brown
contends otherwise, the record demonstrates the officers acted within the scope of
their lawful duty or authority. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327 (2009);
Nyah, 35 F.4th at 1104, 1106; State v. McIver, 858 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 2015).
We also conclude the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was proper. See U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1 & comment. n.4(D). The court did not clearly err by discrediting Brown’s
version of events, see United States v. Wahlstrom, 588 F.3d 538, 542-43 (8th Cir.
2009), and Brown’s conduct was not contemporaneous with his arrest, see United
States v. Lamere, 980 F.2d 506, 509, 515 n.6 (8th Cir. 1992). Finally, on abuse-of-
discretion review, we conclude the court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence. The court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for
appeal.

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
                    ______________________________

                                          -2-