United States of America v. James Brawley

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1062
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Brawley
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri
____________
Submitted: April 7, 2025
Filed: April 17, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Brawley appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled
guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
1The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S. 738 (1967), discussing whether the district court properly treated Brawley’s
prior Missouri conviction for resisting arrest as a crime of violence for the purpose
of determining his base offense level. Brawley filed pro se briefs also challenging the
determination of his base offense level and raising additional issues. We directed the
parties to file supplemental briefing on the crime-of-violence issue, and granted the
government leave to supplement the record with documents from the state court case
in which Brawley received the conviction for resisting arrest.
After careful review of the record as supplemented and the parties’ arguments
on appeal, we conclude that Brawley’s conviction for resisting arrest qualifies as a
crime of violence. See United States v. Brown, 73 F.4th 1011, 1014-16 (8th Cir.
2023) (applying modified categorical approach to determine whether Missouri
conviction for resisting arrest was crime of violence). We also conclude Brawley’s
remaining pro se arguments offer no basis for relief. We reject his contention that the
prior conviction cannot qualify as a crime of violence because it was treated as part
of a grouped sentence when assessing criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2,
comment. (n.3(A)). To the extent Brawley has attempted to raise claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel, we decline to consider them on direct appeal. See United States
v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --