Opinion
No. 18-1003
01-25-2019
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eliseo L. Becerra Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City [Unpublished] Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Eliseo Becerra pleaded 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 presentence investigation report ("PSR") calculated a base offense level of 20 because Becerra previously had sustained a conviction that qualified as a crime of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). After further adjustments, the PSR calculated a total offense level of 21, a criminal history category of VI, and an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 77 to 96 months. The district court varied downward and sentenced Becerra to 60 months' imprisonment. Becerra appeals the designation of his Missouri second-degree robbery conviction as a crime of violence.
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. --------
We review de novo the determination that a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4). United States v. Welch, 879 F.3d 324, 326 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). In United States v. Swopes, 886 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2018) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, --- U.S.L.W. --- (U.S. Aug. 30, 2018) (No. 18-5838), we held that Missouri second-degree robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"). Becerra concedes that Swopes rejected his argument, and in United States v. Young, 720 F. App'x 803 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam), we determined that Swopes foreclosed the argument that Missouri second-degree robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. See also United States v. Hall, 877 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that crime of violence under the guidelines and violent felony under the ACCA have "nearly identical definitions" and that we view them as "interchangeable"). Thus, we affirm.