United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 17-3422
                         ___________________________

                                John Joseph Douglas

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

                                           v.

                             United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
                                    ____________

                             Submitted: March 6, 2019
                              Filed: March 11, 2019
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       John Douglas was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and
he was sentenced to 240 months in prison. His sentence was enhanced under the
Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (felon in possession who has three
prior convictions for “violent felony” shall be imprisoned not less than 15 years).
Douglas later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence as an armed
career criminal. The motion was denied, based in part on the district court’s1
conclusion that Douglas’s two prior Minnesota convictions for first-degree aggravated
robbery qualified as “violent felon[ies]” for purposes of section 924(e). The district
court then granted Douglas a certificate of appealability regarding that conclusion, and
he appeals.

       After careful de novo review, we conclude that Douglas’s prior convictions
were properly classified as “violent felon[ies].” See United States v. Libby, 

, 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2018) (by its terms, first-degree aggravated robbery under
Minnesota law minimally requires that defendant communicate threat of violent force;
as such, elements of offense categorically present “violent felony”); see also United
States v. Salean, 

, 1060 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009) (for purposes of determining
whether prior conviction qualified as “violent felony,” it was irrelevant that prior
conviction was premised on aiding-and-abetting theory of liability). Accordingly, we
affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                        ______________________________




      1
      The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

                                          -2-