United States of America v. Linder Kai Divos, also known as Lindo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1429
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Linder Kai Divos, also known as Lindo,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: August 23, 2023
Filed: August 31, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Linder Divos appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, and
the district court1 imposed a sentence below the advisory sentencing guideline range.
1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). The brief challenges the determination that Divos’s prior state drug
and assault convictions qualified as predicate offenses under the career-offender
guidelines, and argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
After careful de novo review, we conclude that Divos’s challenges to the
career-offender enhancement are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. This court has
held that an assault conviction under Iowa Code § 708.2(1) constitutes a crime of
violence for career-offender purposes, see United States v. Quigley, 943 F.3d 390,
395 (8th Cir. 2019); and we conclude that the Illinois drug conviction qualifies as a
controlled substance offense, see United States v. Henderson, 11 F.4th 713, 718-19
(8th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1696 (2022). We further conclude that
Divos’s sentence was not unreasonable, as 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 the relevant factors. See
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --