Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-18-03636/USCOURTS-ca8-18-03636-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Sejuan Marquise Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3636

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Sejuan Marquise Walker

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: October 14, 2019

Filed: February 6, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 18-3636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878613
Sejuan Walker pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1sentenced Walker to 87 months’

imprisonment, the maximum within the Sentencing Guidelines range. Walker

challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court made erroneous factual

findings. We affirm. 

I. Background

On January 29, 2018, Walker and two friends went car-hopping. Car-hopping

involves locating unlocked cars and stealing their valuable contents. The group stole

a gun, a wallet, and credit and debit cards from a car. Walker used one of the debit

cards to purchase an electronic game system and video games. The purchase made

him a suspect for the theft. At the time, Walker had multiple warrants out for his

arrest. When police approached him at his apartment complex, Walker attempted to

escape through the laundry room before being arrested. A week later, investigating

officers found the stolen gun in the laundry room. One of Walker’s fingerprints was

found on the gun’s magazine. Walker pleaded guilty to the weapon possession

charge.

At sentencing, the district court stated that Walker relied on theft to support

himself rather than find employment. Further, the court found that Walker had a

criminal history that included multiple crimes of theft and had failed to rehabilitate

when provided the opportunity. The court also noted that, unlike his previous

offenses, this crime involved a firearm. Based on these facts, the district court

sentenced Walker to 87 months’ imprisonment, at the top of the Guidelines range.

1The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-

Appellate Case: 18-3636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878613
II. Discussion

Walker argues that the district court procedurally erred because it relied on

disputed factual allegations in his presentence investigation report (PSR).

Specifically, he alleges that the court failed to sentence him “on the basis of accurate

and reliable information.” Appellant’s Br. at 5.

We have held that “[p]rocedural error includes . . . selecting a sentence based

on clearly erroneous facts.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted). “[A] district court finding without

record support is clearly erroneous.” United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999, 1002 (8th

Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). “If the sentencing court chooses to make a finding with

respect to any disputed facts, it must do so on the basis of evidence, and not the

presentence report.” Id. (cleaned up).

The government points out that Walker failed to object to the alleged

procedural error. “If a defendant fails to object timely to a procedural sentencing

error, the error is forfeited and may only be reviewed for plain error.” United States

v. Hill, 552 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Vaughn, 519 F.3d

802, 804 (8th Cir. 2008)). “To constitute a plain error, a district court’s decision must

be (1) an error, (2) which is clear or obvious, and (3) which affectssubstantial rights.”

United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002). “Even if the defendant

shows these three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to correct a

forfeited error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings.” Hill, 552 F.3d at 690 (cleaned up). 

In his reply brief, Walker responds that he preserved his argument for

procedural error by disputing facts in the PSR, which represented that he was the one

who stole the firearm from the car. Instead, Walker asserted that one of his

accomplices stole the gun. He contends the district court, without evidence, assumed

-3-

Appellate Case: 18-3636 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878613
that he stole the gun in considering the severity of his offense. Alternatively, Walker

argues that the procedural error alleged would satisfy even plain error review. The

sentencing transcript indicates that Walker did not object to the district court’s

comments. Therefore, “[b]ecause [Walker] failed to object to the district court’s

alleged procedural error, we review for plain error.” United States v. Cottrell, 853

F.3d 459, 462 (8th Cir. 2017).

Walker argues (1) that the district court adopted the government’s version of

the contested gun facts and (2) that the district court mischaracterized Walker’s time

in group homes as probation supervision. The government responds that Walker

simply misinterprets the district court’s statements. We agree.

In Richey, we rejected the defendant’s “subjective interpretation of the district

court’ssentencing rationale.” 758 F.3d at 1004.There, the defendant believed that the

district court erred because it referenced “all of the reasons set out in the adjustment

report and recommendation,” and the adjustment report contained disputed facts. Id.

But, considering the record as a whole, we determined that the district court was

referring to the “Recommendation/Justification” section, which contained only

undisputed facts. Id. at 1004–05. Because the court did not use disputed facts, we

affirmed. Id. at 1005. 

Looking to the record as a whole—as we did in Richey—we conclude that the

district court did not commit a procedural error, much less a plain error. Walker

argues that the district court found that his criminal conduct was escalating because

he stole a gun. We read the record as the district court merely noting that Walker

possessed a gun rather than that he personally stole it. This is consistent with both

parties’ narratives. In the district court’s words:

In reviewing the case and the guidelines the Court did not consider any

objected-to portions of the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report and there

-4-

Appellate Case: 18-3636 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878613
were several in the offense conduct. Notably, some disagreement as to

whether [Walker’s girlfriend] was really the possessor of the firearm.

But in any event, at some point Mr. Walker did possess the firearm and

we know that because there was a fingerprint of the Defendant located

on the magazine that was inserted into the firearm.

Tr. of Sent. at 13, United States v. Walker, 1:18-cr-00055-LRR (N.D. Iowa Jan. 4,

2019), ECF No. 46 (emphasis added). 

Considering both parties’ accounts, the district court found that Walker

possessed the stolen firearm because it bore his fingerprint. The district court

considered gun possession to be an escalation of his prior conduct, which had never

involved firearms. That finding was supported by the record. In short, the district

court did not use the PSR allegations to resolve a contested issue of fact, and so it did

not commit a procedural error. 

Walker also contends the court construed his troubled upbringing as

aggravating evidence against himrather thanmitigating evidence in hisfavor. Walker

bases this contention on the following quotes from the sentencing transcript:

It’s not only the actual convictions, but also, as Mr. Morfitt has noted,

the pattern of activity and the fact that [Walker] was on correctional

supervision at the time he committed this offense on multiple state

violations of law. . . . Very concerning that he has been noncompliant

while subject to correctional treatment and that he has repeated

violations of law relating to theft and burglary convictions, which the

Court concludes shows a lack of respect for the law. He is penalized for

these after conviction and he goes back and repeats the same crime

several times. I concluded that he would rather be a burglar and a thief

rather than have legal employment and that, of course, is not acceptable.

I did look at the personal and family data that Mr. Meyer talked about

and he did have a lack of stability in the home, but he also had

-5-

Appellate Case: 18-3636 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878613
opportunities to change things around because he was at group homes

and residential placements, he had probation supervision, but his

behavior was not changed. In fact, you could argue that his criminal

behavior is escalating rather than going down as he gets older.

Id. at 14–15 (emphasis added). Citing only the emphasized text, Walker argues that

the district court’s sentence was based on untrue facts: that Walker was placed in the

group home due to bad conduct and that the group home constituted probation

supervision. Walker’s reading ignores the context. The probation and behavioral

issues cited by the district court refer back to his supervised release and prior thefts,

not to Walker’s placement in a group home.

Thus, like Richey, we reject Walker’s subjective interpretation of the district

court’s rationale. The district court’s decision was based on uncontested evidence,

and the district court did not commit procedural error in considering that evidence. 

The district court expressly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and based

Walker’ssentence “on hislikelihood to recidivate and the seriousness of his criminal

behavior.” Id. at 15–16. The district court did not err.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court. 

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 18-3636 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/06/2020 Entry ID: 4878613