United States of America v. Nathan Isadore Jiles

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2142
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Nathan Isadore Jiles
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: April 17, 2026
Filed: June 15, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Nathan Jiles pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8) and to assault of a federal officer involving
physical contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a). The district court1 imposed a
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
sentence of 168 months in prison, which was above the Sentencing Guidelines range
of 121 to 151 months calculated by the court. On appeal, Jiles argues the district
court erred in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range by applying a six-level
enhancement under USSG § 3A1.2(c)(1) for assault creating a substantial risk of
serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
When executing an arrest warrant for Jiles on other charges, law enforcement
initiated a “vehicle pin” stop—a stop where law enforcement vehicles take positions
on all four sides of a subject’s car. Jiles reversed his car and rammed Deputy United
States Marshal Grady Sheehy’s car, which was the rear pin. When he was struck,
Deputy Sheehy was standing with one foot in his car, one foot outside his car, and
both hands on his gun. The force moved Deputy Sheehy’s parked car a few inches
backwards, causing the car’s pillar to hit Deputy Sheehy in the chest and knock him
off balance. Deputy Sheehy’s car also struck Officer Silje Lynne, pushing her
backwards while she had her gun drawn.
After Jiles failed to break through the barricade, he continued to resist. When
Officer Christopher Carton approached the driver-side window with his taser in
hand, Jiles rolled up his window, forcing the officer to use a shatter ball to obtain
access. Jiles began to reach underneath the steering column in an apparent attempt
to retrieve something. When Officer Carton asked what he was grabbing, Jiles said,
“I got a gun.” Officer Carton observed Jiles “manipulating” a gun, either to remove
it from the holster or rack the slide. Officer Carton testified this caused him to be
concerned that Jiles was going to shoot him, but fortunately Jiles dropped the gun
when ordered to do so. After initially dropping the gun, Jiles continued to attempt
to retrieve the weapon. Ultimately, the officers secured Jiles and his loaded gun.
Section 3A1.2(c)(1) applies when the defendant “assault[s] [an] officer during
the course of the offense . . . in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily
injury.” We review factual findings supporting the application of § 3A1.2(c)(1) for
clear error. United States v. Davis, 151 F.4th 998, 1002 (8th Cir. 2025).

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
The district court found that ramming Deputy Sheehy’s car and, alternatively,
Jiles’ conduct with a gun was sufficient to find that Jiles assaulted an officer in a
manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. Jiles emphasizes the lack
of any injury, but the absence of a serious bodily injury does not preclude a finding
that Jiles created a substantial risk. Id. The undisputed testimony was that Jiles
stepped on the gas and backed into Deputy Sheehy’s car with sufficient force to
move the parked car backwards, knocking Deputy Sheehy and Officer Lynne off
balance. Deputy Sheehy testified that being knocked off balance with a weapon
drawn risks an accidental discharge. Additionally, one of Officer Lynne’s hands
was knocked off her gun. The district court found that Jiles’s conduct could have
resulted in an officer or a civilian bystander being shot. As the district court
explained, it was “only because the officers were well trained and agile were they
able to prevent an injury from occurring.” We find no error, clear or otherwise, in
the district court’s determination that Jiles created a substantial risk of serious bodily
injury by using his car as a weapon to strike officers who had drawn their weapons.
The district court also found that Jiles’s manipulation of the gun in front of
Officer Carton independently supported the enhancement. While Jiles tacitly
acknowledges his conduct created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, he
contends that he did not assault or intend to assault Officer Carton. The district court
credited Officer Carton’s testimony that he feared Jiles would shoot him when he
observed Jiles manipulating the gun. And we cannot say Officer Carton’s fear was
not reasonable considering Jiles had just unsuccessfully attempted to escape by
ramming his car into a police barricade. See United States v. Olson, 646 F.3d 569,
574 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting law enforcement’s fear was reasonable when faced with
a fleeing suspect, holding a gun, who had refused to relinquish it, and began to raise
it as the officers closed in around him). Finally, the district court’s conclusion that
Jiles intended to cause fear is supported by Jiles announcing that he had a gun, his
subsequent statements that he went into “fight or flight” mode, and his history of
threatening law enforcement. The district court’s alternative determination for
application of the enhancement was also not in error.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --