United States v. Ronald Houston

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: July 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-2663
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: April 10, 2023 Filed: July 20, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________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