United States of America v. Colique Depree Brown

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[Unpublished]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
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

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-

-- 2 of 2 --