Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-01245/USCOURTS-ca8-19-01245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George R. Gunn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1245

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

George R. Gunn

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

 ____________

 Submitted: January 13, 2020

Filed: March 6, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

George R. Gunn pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1343. The district court1

sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment (the

1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 19-1245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2020 Entry ID: 4888671
guidelines range was 18-24 months). He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Gunn believes his above-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

This court reviews the substantive “reasonableness of a sentence under a highly

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Abrica-Sanchez, 808 F.3d

330, 334 (8th Cir. 2015). “A district court abuses its discretion only if it ‘fails to

consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight;’ ‘gives

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor;’ or ‘commits a clear error of

judgment’ in weighing the proper factors.” United States v. Pierre, 912 F.3d 1137,

1144 (8th Cir. 2019), quoting United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc). “[I]t will be the unusual case when [this court] reverse[s] a district

courtsentence—whether within, above, or belowthe applicableGuidelines range—as

substantively unreasonable.” Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464.

Gunn believes his sentence is substantively unreasonable because “[t]he court

abused its discretion when it gave inappropriate weight to Mr. Gunn’s criminal

history.” Imposing the sentence, the court considered two “aggravating” factors:

The first is the circumstances of this offense in particular in which you

defrauded your employer out of over $117,000. And I can’t improve on

the account that the victim impact witnesses have given the Court. Of

course, that was reflected in large part in the presentence report itself.

So that’s a grave concern.

The other concern is your criminal history. Your criminal history issuch

that it may not be that your sentencing guidelines or your criminal

history category is understated in a technical manner, but I sure think it

is because you have so many convictions for basically the same thing.

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-1245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2020 Entry ID: 4888671
I think that the guidelines, whether they’re 18 to 24 months or 21 to 27

months, are woefully understated as is the joint recommendation for the

low end of the guidelines, whichever it is.

. . . . 

I’m sure you’ve been before other courts, and you said that you’re very

remorseful and it won’t happen again, but, good grief, how many were

there? Did I count about ten of them or so? Eight or ten different

convictions for basically the same thing, misdemeanors and felonies,

misdemeanors and felonies. Been to prison twice. 

I’m unwilling to follow the recommendation, and the guidelines in this

case are inappropriate.

The record shows “the district court considered all of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors

and had substantial latitude to determine how much weight to give the various

factors.” United States v. Murphy, 880 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal

quotation marks omitted). It was “permitted to conclude that the Guidelines failed

to adequately account for [Gunn’s] prior criminal history.” Id. It did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing him. See id. (holding that a 160-month sentence for bank

robbery (guidelinesrange of 33-41months) wassubstantively reasonable because the

“district court was permitted to conclude that the Guidelines failed to adequately

account for Murphy’s prior criminal history”); United States v. Whitlow, 815 F.3d

430, 436-37 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding that a 108-month sentence for wire fraud

(guidelines range of 51-63 months) was substantively reasonable because defendant

had 16 prior convictions).

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 19-1245 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/06/2020 Entry ID: 4888671