No. 22-2308 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Johnathan Brown,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: March 13, 2023 Filed: July 21, 2023 ____________ Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Johnathan Brown pleaded guilty to a firearms offense. The district court* sentenced Brown to sixty months’ imprisonment. Brown argues that the district court

* The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. committed procedural error by miscalculating his base offense level under the sentencing guidelines. We conclude that the court did not err, and therefore affirm the judgment.

In March 2019, St. Louis police officers attempted to initiate a traffic stop after observing a vehicle run through a stop sign. The vehicle led the officers on a high- speed chase through St. Louis, but eventually stopped in a residential neighborhood. Brown and another man exited the vehicle and fled on foot.

The officers found Brown hiding in a nearby residence. A witness saw Brown drop an object into a trash can while he was running away. The officers searched the trash can and retrieved a firearm. Before this incident, in 2013, Brown had sustained a felony conviction in Missouri for resisting arrest. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.150 (amended 2017).

Brown pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court determined a base offense level of twenty under the sentencing guidelines. The determination turned on the court’s conclusion that Brown’s prior conviction for resisting arrest by using or threatening the use of force was a “crime of violence.” See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.150.1(1); USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Based on a total offense level of twenty, and a criminal history category VI, the court calculated an advisory guideline range of seventy to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment. The court varied downward from the advisory range, and imposed a sentence of sixty months to be followed by three years of supervised release.

The guidelines set a base offense level of twenty if “the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of . . . a crime of violence.” USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). The guidelines define “crime of violence” in the so-called “force clause” as “any offense under federal or state law,

-2- punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1).

To determine whether a past conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence,” we are required to apply the “categorical approach,” which compares the elements of the offense of conviction with the requirements under USSG § 4B1.2(a)(1). United States v. Harper, 869 F.3d 624, 625 (8th Cir. 2017). If the statute covers more conduct than the definition of a crime of violence, and lists alternative methods of committing the crime, then we must determine whether the listed alternatives are elements or means. Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500, 517 (2016). If the statutory alternatives are multiple means of committi