Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03139/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Lunderman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3139

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Plaintiff – Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota.

Johnny Lunderman, also known as *

Johnny Iron Horse, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant – Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 8, 2010

Filed: March 15, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Lunderman pled guilty to engaging in sexual intercourse with a girl who

was between the ages of 12 and 16 years old and at least four years his junior, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). The district court1

 imposed a 40 month prison

sentence, a three month upward variance from the advisory sentencing guideline

range. On appeal Lunderman challenges his sentence as unreasonable. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-3139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Entry ID: 3644199
-2-

The district court calculated Lunderman's advisory guideline range to be 30 to

37 months based on a criminal history category of III and total offense level of 17,

including a two level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice.

That enhancement was based on the court's conclusion that Lunderman had "lied to

a federal officer repeatedly . . . knowingly and intentionally" by explaining to the FBI

on two occasions that he and the victim had not engaged in sexual relations but had

merely shook hands and hugged. The court also noted that Lunderman had struck and

fled from the police officer who first attempted to arrest him in connection with the

instant offense. 

The district court touched on the statutory sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a). It discussed Lunderman's criminal history, which included an extensive

juvenile record, and his failure to reform after previous custodial and probationary

sentences. It concluded that "[t]he circumstances of the offense and the relevant

conduct justify an upward variance," and added three months to the advisory

maximum "for [Lunderman's] conduct of assaulting a federal officer and fleeing."

We review the sentence imposed for both procedural error and substantive

reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,

552 U.S 38, 51 (2007). In determining whether the district court imposed a

substantively unreasonable sentence, we "must give due deference to [its] decision

that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance." Id.

Lunderman argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it was based in part upon

his juvenile record and because the district court "double counted" his assault of the

officer by considering it in both applying an obstruction of justice enhancement and

an upward variance. We disagree. 

 The district court did not procedurally err, for it properly calculated the

guideline range, treated it as advisory, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and

adequately explained the sentence. See id. Nothing precluded the court from

considering Lunderman's juvenile record. 18 U.S.C. § 3661 ("No limitation shall be

placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a

Appellate Case: 09-3139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Entry ID: 3644199
-3-

person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and

consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence."); see also United States

v. Miller, 484 F.3d 968, 970–71 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding no error in consideration at

sentencing of defendant's juvenile record). The assault was one of two incidents

which the court considered in applying an obstruction enhancement and that did not

preclude the court from determining that a guideline sentence would inadequately

reflect Lunderman's history and characteristics and the purposes listed in §3553(a).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that "the § 3553(a) factors,

on a whole, justif[ied] the extent of the variance." See Gall, 552 U.S at 51.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3139 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Entry ID: 3644199