United States of America v. Denvy Hoffman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2479
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Denvy Hoffman
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: March 13, 2023
Filed: March 30, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Denvy Hoffman pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and the district court1
sentenced him to 72 months’ imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised
1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
release. Hoffman appeals his sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
we affirm.
Hoffman’s only argument on appeal is that the district court erred in
calculating his base offense level. Specifically, Hoffman asserts that his prior Iowa
conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver cannot serve as a
predicate “controlled substance offense” for the purpose of increasing his base
offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 2K2.1(a)(3).
Hoffman grounds his claim on the theory that, at the time of his previous conviction,
Iowa law did not distinguish between hemp and marijuana, but at the time of
sentencing in this case, Iowa law specifically excluded hemp from the marijuana
definition. According to Hoffman, since his prior conviction was under an Iowa
statute that included substances that Iowa had decontrolled at the time of his
sentencing, the prior conviction is overbroad and cannot serve as a “controlled
substances offense” for Guidelines purposes.
“On appeal, we review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a . . .
controlled substance offense under the Guidelines.” United States v. Williams, 926
F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2019). As Hoffman concedes, his argument is squarely
foreclosed by this Court’s precedent. Indeed, in United States v. Bailey, 37 F.4th
467 (8th Cir. 2022) (per curiam), we held that the district court did not err in
increasing the defendant’s base offense level under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(3) given his
previous Iowa conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. We
reasoned that, although Iowa had removed hemp from its definition of marijuana,
this was immaterial, as we do not look to “current state law to define a previous
offense.” Id. at 470 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Perez, 46 F.4th 691,
703 (8th Cir. 2022) (“[W]hether a prior state conviction is a controlled substance
offense for Guidelines purposes is based on the law at the time of conviction, without
reference to current state law.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
“[I]t is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of
a prior panel.” United States v. Anderson, 771 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2014)
(alteration in original) (citation omitted). Thus, Hoffman’s argument is foreclosed.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --