Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02199/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02199-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Jarvis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark E. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2199

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Michael Jarvis, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 14, 2010

Filed: May 28, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Michael Jarvis appeals the 175-month sentence imposed upon him following

his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of stolen

firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 and 924. Jarvis argues that the district

court1

 abused its discretion when imposing an above guidelines sentence via partially

consecutive sentences. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-2199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Entry ID: 3669374
-2-

I.

At sentencing, the district court considered the recommendations of the

presentence investigation report (PSR). The PSR grouped Jarvis’s two convictions

together and computed a base offense level of 20. The PSR recommended a ten-level

enhancement based on the numerous firearms, some of which were stolen and used

in another offense, and Jarvis’s obstruction of justice. With a three-level reduction for

acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level was 27. Jarvis’s criminal history

category was IV and consequently his guidelines range was 100 to 125 months’

imprisonment. Because the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 924 was ten years’

imprisonment on each count, the PSR recommended a 120-month sentence on count

one; a 120-month sentence on count two, with five months running consecutively; for

a total sentence of 125 months’ imprisonment. 

The district court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and

determined that an above guidelines sentence of 175 months’ imprisonment was

appropriate. Accordingly, the court sentenced Jarvis to 120 months’ imprisonment

on the first count and 120 months’ imprisonment on the second count. The court

ordered that five months of the sentence for the second count run consecutively to the

sentence for the first count, bringing the sentence to the top of the guidelines range.

Relying on 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3584, the court then varied upward from the

guidelines, and imposed an additional fifty months of the sentence for the second

count to run consecutively to the sentence for count one.

II.

We review the district court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States

v. Azure, 596 F.3d 449, 456 (8th Cir. 2010). The district court’s decision to impose

consecutive or concurrent sentences is reviewed for reasonableness. United States v.

Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2010). 

Appellate Case: 09-2199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Entry ID: 3669374
-3-

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), when multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed

at the same time, they will run concurrently “unless the court orders or the statute

mandates that the terms are to run consecutively.” When determining whether the

terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently or consecutively, the court must

consider the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the sentencing

guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b).

During sentencing, the court discussed the factors under § 3553(a) that

supported consecutive sentences: the firearms were stolen during a burglary

committed for revenge; Jarvis had egregiously obstructed justice; Jarvis was

undeterred by prior incarceration; Jarvis’s prior criminal history was violent; and the

public needed protection from Jarvis’s further crimes. The court noted that Jarvis’s

mental illness was a mitigating factor, but found that Jarvis’s failure to seek treatment

for his illness increased the likelihood that he would commit future crimes. 

Jarvis argues that U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2 prohibited his sentence. We disagree.

Under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c), multiple sentences are to run concurrently “[i]f the

sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is adequate

to achieve the total punishment.” If such sentence is inadequate, “then the sentence

imposed on one or more of the other counts shall run consecutively, but only to the

extent necessary to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment.”

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d). 

Although the court must consider the guidelines when fashioning an appropriate

sentence, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005), the guidelines do not

control whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively. Rutherford, 599 F.3d

at 821; see also United States v. Hollis, 552 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir.), cert. denied

129 S. Ct. 2419 (2009) (holding that § 5G1.2(d) is advisory after Booker); United

States v. Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024, 1033 (6th Cir. 2007) (same); United States v. Kurti,

427 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2005) (same). When seeking to impose an above

Appellate Case: 09-2199 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Entry ID: 3669374
-4-

guidelines sentence via consecutive terms of imprisonment, the court must articulate

(1) why an above guidelines sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary

under § 3553(a); and (2) why consecutive terms of imprisonment are reasonable under

§ 3584, in light of the § 3553(a) factors. Rutherford, 599 F.3d at 821; United States

v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006).

The district court explained why an above guidelines sentence of 175 months’

imprisonment was sufficient, but not greater than necessary under § 3553(a). It found

that a sentence within the guidelines range would neither reflect Jarvis’s egregious

obstruction of justice nor address the fact that his statements at sentencing were

inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility. It found that the public was in need

of protection from Jarvis in light of his significant criminal history, which included

violence and bizarre behavior. The court also explained the justification for imposing

partially consecutive sentences, discussing the § 3553(a) factors and citing § 3584.

An above guidelines sentence was appropriate in this case. The district court

adequately explained why partially consecutive sentences were reasonable, and it did

not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jarvis as it did.

III.

The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2199 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/28/2010 Entry ID: 3669374