United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3107

_________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antywan Seawood

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ___________________________

No. 18-3200

___________________________

 United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Arlandus Howard

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeals from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

 ____________
 Submitted: December 9, 2019

Filed: April 24, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arlandus Howard and Antywan Seawood committed a series of crimes starting

in February 2017 that involved three carjackings and the theft of 63 firearms around

St. Louis, Missouri. They were indicted, along with three other men, on seven counts. 

A jury found Howard guilty on three counts concerning the first carjacking (Counts

1–3): possession of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j); carjacking in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119; and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of

violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The jury could not reach a

unanimous decision on the four counts (Counts 4–7) concerning the second and third

carjackings. The government ultimately dismissed Counts 4–7. Seawood later

pleaded guilty to Counts 1–3 pursuant to an agreement by which the government

dismissed Counts 4–7. The district court1 sentenced both Howard and Seawood to 240

months in prison, denying the full extent of the government’s requests for upward

variances.2 Howard and Seawood now appeal the substantive reasonableness of their

sentences. Having jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

2The government requested that Howard be sentenced to 360 months in prison

and Seawood be sentenced to 300 months in prison, largely based on the conduct

underlying Counts 4–7, which included two additional charges under § 924(c). 

-2-
This court reviews the imposition of sentences for procedural and substantive

error. Neither Howard nor Seawood argue the district court procedurally erred in

imposing sentence.3 We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). “A

district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails

to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant

or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of

judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. Green, 946 F.3d 433, 440 (8th

Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 2009)). 

The district court “need not thoroughly discuss every [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factor;

rather, a district court must make it clear on the record that it has considered the factors

in making a decision as to the appropriate sentence.” United States v. Leonard, 785

F.3d 303, 307 (8th Cir. 2015). 

On appeal, Howard and Seawood argue the district court ignored relevant

sentencing factors, such as their relative youth and lack of criminal histories. The

record shows that the district court considered both of those factors in crafting the

appellants’ sentences and in denying the government’s motions for upward variances. 

The district court weighed those factors, among others, against the seriousness of the

crimes committed and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Simply

because the district court weighed relevant factors differently than Howard or Seawood

3Seawood points out a discrepancy in the district court’s description of his

sentence and applicable guideline range. The Judgment and Statement of Reasons as

filed by the district court indicate that Seawood received a sentence within the

guideline range. However, as is clear in the sentencing hearing transcript, and as

conceded by the government, Seawood was sentenced well above his guideline range.

The same discrepancy is present in Howard’s case. Neither Seawood nor Howard

appear to raise a dispute as to the guideline ranges calculated and applied in their cases.

-3-
would prefer does not mean the district court abused its discretion. See United States

v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 2011). 

To the extent Seawood argues that the discrepancy noted in footnote 3 makes

his sentence substantively unreasonable, we must disagree. The district court

accurately calculated his applicable guideline range at sentencing. Further, the court

made clear that it had a well-considered plan for crafting proportionate sentences for

Seawood, Howard, and their co-defendants, taking into consideration their roles in the

violent crime spree. Neither the record, nor arguments raised by Seawood, give any

indication that the court’s descriptive error was also substantive.

Howard and Seawood also argue the district court gave outsized weight to their

conduct pertaining to the second and third carjackings (Counts 4–7). The sentencing

court is not prohibited from considering acquitted conduct “so long as that conduct has

been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Ruelas-Carbajal,

933 F.3d 928, 930 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157

(1997) (per curiam)); see also United States v. Griggs, 71 F.3d 276, 281 (8th Cir.

1995) (stating that, when sentencing, the district court must consider all relevant

conduct “whether uncharged, charged, or charged and dismissed”). Here, the district

court, which presided over Howard’s trial, applied the proper standard of proof at

sentencing and its factual findings were adequately supported by the record.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

 ___________________________

-4-