United States v. Cyrano Irons ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-2750
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Cyrano R. Irons
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: January 14, 2022
    Filed: March 23, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Cyrano Irons, who pleaded guilty to a firearm offense, challenges the
    criminal-history score assigned at sentencing. Over Irons’s objection, the district
    court 1 added two points for a pair of armed-criminal-action convictions. See 
    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.015
    . We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable David G. Kays, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    Even if we assume that the district court made a mistake in counting those two
    offenses, any error was harmless. See United States v. Woods, 
    670 F.3d 883
    , 886
    (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a computational error is “harmless” if it “did not
    substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing proceeding” (quotation marks
    omitted)). At the sentencing hearing, the court explained that “notwithstanding any
    of these . . . calculations, if [Irons] had won every one of the [objections] advanced,
    [it] would [have] come out in the same place because of 18 U.S.C. [§] 3553(a),”
    meaning that Irons’s sentence was based on the statutory sentencing factors rather
    than the allegedly erroneous criminal-history calculation. This is as clear a statement
    as any that Irons would have received the same sentence “regardless of which
    [criminal-history score] applied.” United States v. Staples, 
    410 F.3d 484
    , 492 (8th
    Cir. 2005); see United States v. McGee, 
    890 F.3d 730
    , 737 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding
    that a similar error was harmless).
    We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
    _______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-2750

Filed Date: 3/23/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/23/2022