United States of America v. O’Shea Taelly Wright

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1753
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
O’Shea Taelly Wright
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: April 18, 2025
Filed: July 10, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
O’Shea Taelly Wright was involved in a fight outside a Waterloo nightclub.
During the melee, he grabbed a gun from his SUV, fired multiple shots into the
brawling bunch, and then fled the scene. Two people were shot, but apparently not
by Wright. Police did not recover the gun.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Wright pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). He did not object to a four-level enhancement for using
ammunition “in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The Government also sought an upward departure for using a
weapon “in the commission of the offense,” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6, but Wright objected
in part because § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) “already increased” his offense level.
At sentencing, the district court1 found Wright’s conduct “simply too
dangerous” for a guideline range sentence and stated that the four-level increase for
possessing a firearm in connection with another felony would have applied “whether
or not Mr. Wright actually opened fire as he did.” So needing “some additional
sanction” for shooting into the crowd, the district court departed upward under
§ 5K2.6. Wright argues the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement “fully accounted” for
shooting the gun because he would not have committed another felony offense under
Iowa law had he not fired it. So, he says, the departure was based on an “incorrect
premise.”2
We disagree. For the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, the district court found
Wright committed the felonies of intimidation with a dangerous weapon, Iowa Code
§ 708.6, and of assault while using or displaying a dangerous weapon, Iowa Code
§§ 708.1(2)(c), 708.2(3); see United States v. Holm, 745 F.3d 938, 941 (8th Cir.
2014) (“A crime designated as an aggravated misdemeanor under Iowa law falls
within the Guidelines definition of felony offense.”). Intimidation with a dangerous
1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
2 Wright says he “did not specifically address double counting in the district
court,” so there is confusion about whether we should review for abuse of discretion
or for plain error. See United States v. Peeples, 879 F.3d 282, 287 (8th Cir. 2018);
(abuse of discretion for upward departure); United States v. Lovato, 868 F.3d 681,
684 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain error for upward departure when defendant argues double
counting for the first time on appeal). The district court did not err, so the standard
does not matter.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
weapon encompasses “threaten[ing] to commit such an act under circumstances
raising a reasonable expectation that the threat will be carried out.” § 708.6; see also
State v. Lane, 743 N.W.2d 178, 184 (Iowa 2007) (rejecting ineffective assistance of
counsel claim for lawyer “failing to articulate grounds for acquittal” when defendant
made threats inferring he would shoot people even without “specifically sa[ying] he
was going to shoot [them]”). The district court did not err in finding the
enhancement would have applied “whether or not” Wright fired. So departing
upward under § 5K2.6 accounted for a “distinct harm[]” and was not in error. United
States v. Peeples, 879 F.3d 282, 289 (8th Cir. 2018).
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --