Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02312/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02312-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Montize Herman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2312

___________

United States of America, * 

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

 * Northern District of Iowa. 

Julian Montize Herman, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2006

 Filed:November 17, 2006

 ____________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

 ____________

PER CURIAM. 

Julian Montize Herman was charged with two counts of unlawfully possessing

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and g(9), after he sold a rifle to a

Sioux City, Iowa pawn shop in May 2004. Herman was prohibited by law from

possessing a firearm because he was a convicted felon and because he had a previous

domestic abuse misdemeanor conviction. He pled guilty to both counts, and the

district court1

 sentenced him to 45 months to run consecutively to his undischarged

state sentences. Herman appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence and

Appellate Case: 06-2312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2006 Entry ID: 2110504
-2-

arguing that the two counts of firearm possession should have been merged. We

affirm the reasonableness of his sentence but remand to the district court to vacate one

count of conviction.

The district court calculated a total offense level of 12 with a criminal history

category of V, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 27-33 months. The court

concluded that an upward departure to criminal history category VI was warranted,

increasing Herman's advisory guideline range to 30-37 months. The court then made

an upward variance and sentenced Herman to 45 months imprisonment to run

consecutively to concurrent five and ten year state sentences for drug offenses. On

appeal Herman challenges the imposition of a consecutive sentence and argues that

the sentence is unreasonable. 

We review a sentence for reasonableness in light of the § 3553(a) factors,

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260 (2005), applying an abuse of discretion

standard. See, e.g., United State v. Hacker, 450 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir. 2006)

(departure); United States v. Ture, 450 F.3d 352, 356 (8th Cir. 2006) (variance). A

sentencing court abuses its discretion if it "fails to consider a relevant factor that

should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error

of judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d

1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005). Because Herman failed to object at the time of sentencing

to the imposition of a consecutive sentence, we review that decision for plain error

only. United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005).

The district court departed upward because it found that Herman's criminal

history category substantially underrepresented the likelihood that he would commit

future criminal acts, noting that since he became an adult Herman has "committed

crimes in virtually every year of his life..." The district court’s upward variance of

8 months was based on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, especially Herman’s "high

degree of dangerousness." Given his criminal history, which includes three assaults

Appellate Case: 06-2312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2006 Entry ID: 2110504
-3-

and several crimes not included in his history score, the nature of his present crime,

and his pattern of violent conduct for which he has received lenient sentences in the

past, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. We find no plain error

in the decision to make his present sentence consecutive to his state sentence since he

would otherwise have faced no additional penalty as a result of his unlawful

possession of a firearm. See United States v. Mathis, 451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir.

2006) (court has wide discretion under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 to order a federal sentence

to run consecutively with an undischarged state sentence).

Herman also challenges the district court's failure to merge his two counts of

conviction, citing United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc)

(per curiam). In Richardson, we held that a defendant involved in a single incident

of possession may be prosecuted for only one charge of unlawful firearm possession

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), even if he fits within more than one prohibited class. Id.

at 422. Here, the government concedes that the record must be corrected to include

only one count of conviction. 

Accordingly, we affirm Herman’s sentence but remand to the district court with

instructions to vacate one of his unlawful possession convictions. 

________________________________ 

 

Appellate Case: 06-2312 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2006 Entry ID: 2110504