United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1062 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. James Brawley lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ____________ Submitted: April 7, 2025 Filed: April 17, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

James Brawley appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

U.S. 738 (1967), discussing whether the district court properly treated Brawley’s prior Missouri conviction for resisting arrest as a crime of violence for the purpose of determining his base offense level. Brawley filed pro se briefs also challenging the determination of his base offense level and raising additional issues. We directed the parties to file supplemental briefing on the crime-of-violence issue, and granted the government leave to supplement the record with documents from the state court case in which Brawley received the conviction for resisting arrest.

After careful review of the record as supplemented and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that Brawley’s conviction for resisting arrest qualifies as a crime of violence. See United States v. Brown, 73 F.4th 1011, 1014-16 (8th Cir. 2023) (applying modified categorical approach to determine whether Missouri conviction for resisting arrest was crime of violence). We also conclude Brawley’s remaining pro se arguments offer no basis for relief. We reject his contention that the prior conviction cannot qualify as a crime of violence because it was treated as part of a grouped sentence when assessing criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3(A)). To the extent Brawley has attempted to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to consider them on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the district court. ______________________________

-2-