United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1849

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Derek Eugene Altmayer

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: March 9, 2020

Filed: June 17, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Derek Eugene Altmayer pleaded guilty to being an unlawful user of a

controlled substance in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3)
& 924(a)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him to 30 months in prison, a 27-month

downward variance from his Guidelines range. Altmayer appeals, arguing that his

sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Law enforcement officers discovered thousands of rounds of ammunition and

160 firearms during a search of Altmayer’s family’s house. Most of the guns were

in safes, but several were loaded and in living areas of the home. Altmayer, who used

marijuana daily, was agitated and emotional during the search. He protested when

officers seized marijuana and told them he would get more after they left. When

officers returned a month later and arrested Altmayer for possessing firearms while

using marijuana, they found a shotgun in his bedroom. Altmayer was again

combative and failed to follow the officers’ verbal commands.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1)

fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2)

gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the

appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.” 

Id. (citation omitted).

Altmayer first says that the district court abused its discretion by giving

significant weight to improper factors. Prior to sentencing, Altmayer’s mother filed

a claim to recover the seized firearms. The district court commented on her claim,

noting that it undermined Altmayer’s argument that he would not have access to

firearms if given probation. The court also mentioned its concern that Altmayer and

his mother failed to appreciate the seriousness of the offense, observed that there were

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
large amounts of gold, cash, and ammunition in the house, and asked whether the

family was preparing for a “siege.”

The district court’s explanation of the sentence focused on the proper factors: 

the number of firearms and ammunition in Altmayer’s control while using marijuana,

his failure to appreciate the seriousness of his offense, and the need to prevent

sentencing disparities between similarly-situated defendants. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). The court’s comment about his mother’s efforts to reclaim the guns related

to Altmayer’s continuing access to firearms. Moreover, the court expressly noted it

was not holding Altmayer responsible for his mother’s actions, saying: it “is

not . . . [his] fault what mom is up to.” Sent. Tr. 21. The district court’s observations

about the combination of gold, cash, guns, and ammunition, and its concern about a

“siege,” were part of the court’s attempt to determine whether Altmayer presented a

continuing threat to the public; or if, as Altmayer claimed, the guns were merely

family heirlooms. The court was within its discretion to consider the full range of

facts surrounding Altmayer’s conduct before deciding on a sentence. 

Altmayer next argues that the court abused its discretion in weighing the

sentencing factors. “[W]hen a district court has sentenced a defendant below the

advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its

discretion in not varying downward still further.” United States v. Merrell, 842 F.3d

577, 585 (8th Cir. 2016). Here, the district court carefully compared facts like

Altmayer’s minimal criminal history and his contributions to the community with the

various aggravating factors noted above and decided against a further downward

variance. This decision was well within the court’s “wide latitude” to decide how to

weigh § 3553(a)’s factors. United States v. Clayton, 828 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir.

2016). We affirm.

______________________________

-3-