143312P.pdf   10/20/2017  United States  v.  Donald Boman
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3312
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Murphy, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal Case - sentence. On remand from the Supreme Court for further 
   consideration in light of Mathis v. United States, and applying the 
   categorical approach, we conclude Boman's prior conviction for use of a 
   firearm during the commission of a violent crime under 18 U.S.C. sec. 
   924(c)(3) is not a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 
   The statute is not a divisible statute, as a judge decides whether an 
   underlying offense constitutes a crime of violence and the term crime of 
   violence is intended to be an element of the crime not an alternative 
   means. Applying plain error review, Boman's sentence of 262 months' 
   imprisonment under the ACCA, more than ten years longer than he would have 
   received, seriously affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial 
   proceedings and is reversed. Application of the four-level sentence 
   enhancement under USSG sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was not clear error, as the 
   finding that Boman discharged a firearm was supported by a preponderance 
   of the evidence and there was not substantial evidence of self- defense; 
   thus the district court did not clearly err in finding Boman committed the 
   Iowa Felony offense of Intimidation with a Dangerous Weapon. 
  
143312P.pdf   01/07/2016  United States  v.  Donald Boman
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3312
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not 
   err in excluding the introduction of "reverse" Rule 404(b) evidence 
   relating to the criminal conviction of the victim; the court did not err 
   in excluding, under Rule 403, evidence relating to the victim's motive and 
   bias against defendant; the victim's 911 call was admissible under the 
   excited utterance exception to Rule 803(2); defendant was properly 
   classified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e); the 
   district court did not err in applying a four-level enhancement under 
   Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) based on its determination that defendant 
   possessed the firearm in connection with the Iowa felony offense of 
   Intimidation with a dangerous weapon.