United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2365

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gregory Carroll Chandler

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota

____________ 

Submitted: October 17, 2022

Filed: January 10, 2023 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Chandler appeals his revocation sentence, arguing procedural error 

and substantive unreasonableness. We affirm.

Chandler pled guilty to knowingly possessing firearms by a prohibited person 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). He was sentenced to three years of probation. 
-2- 

This represented a variance from his United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 

(“Guidelines”) range of 30 to 37 months of imprisonment. 

Near the end of the probation period and after a search of his residence, 

Chandler admitted to violating a condition of his supervised release, specifically by

possessing the controlled substance marijuana. Additionally, drug paraphernalia, 

shotgun ammunition, and multiple edged weapons were found in Chandler’s home. 

At Chandler’s revocation hearing, the district court1 heard or recited 

information about Chandler’s history, the events leading to revocation, the initial 

sentencing hearing, and the lenient sentence he had initially received. The district 

court also expressed frustration because Chandler “used” or “abused” the 

“tremendous break” received at the initial sentencing. Further, the district court 

noted “there are too many violations here for the Court to overlook,” including 

Chandler submitting an altered urine sample and being verbally abusive with the 

probation officer. 

The supplemental presentence report (“PSR”) correctly provided a Guidelines 

range revocation sentence of three to nine months. However, during the revocation 

hearing, the district court stated, “the guideline range is 30 to 37 months of custody. 

. . . I’m looking at the wrong thing here. Yeah. That was the original range of 

custody. . . . No. 30 to 37 months is correct, isn’t it? . . . That is correct.” The 

district court then went on to sentence Chandler to eight months of incarceration, 

stating such period was “far under the guideline range. Normally he would receive 

a sentence of 30 months[.]” Counsel did not object to the Guidelines range stated at 

the time of the hearing. 

Chandler asserts procedural error occurred when the district court improperly 

calculated the Guidelines range and argues his resulting revocation sentence was 

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the 

District of South Dakota.
-3- 

substantively unreasonable. Because Chandler did not raise the issue of procedural 

error before the district court, we review it for plain error. United States v. Ross, 29 

F.4th 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2022). We review the substantive reasonableness of his 

sentence for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1008.

“Procedural errors include[, among other things,] failing to calculate (or 

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range[.]” Id. (quoting United States v. 

Godfrey, 863 F.3d 1088, 1094–95 (8th Cir. 2017)). There can be no dispute that 

although the district court had the correct Guidelines range listed in the PSR, it stated 

the incorrect advisory range during the hearing. Under the plain error standard, 

Chandler established the Guidelines range error was “clear or obvious.” United 

States v. Combs, 44 F.4th 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Molina-Martinez v. 

United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016)). Further, “a defendant can rely on the 

application of an incorrect Guidelines range to show an effect on his substantial 

rights.” Molina-Martinez, 578 U.S. at 203. However, “[w]e will exercise our 

discretion to correct such an error only if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Coleman, 961 F.3d 

1024, 1027 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 

(1993)). 

Chandler contends the error necessarily seriously affected the judicial 

proceedings because the district court may have sentenced him differently had it 

understood the mistake. We disagree. While the district court did not explicitly state 

it would have sentenced Chandler to the same sentence absent the erroneous 

Guidelines range, the district court declared Chandler committed “too many 

violations here for the Court to overlook” and had “abused” the “tremendous break” 

allowed at the previous sentencing. Moreover, the district court did not merely 

sentence Chandler to the bottom of the supposed Guidelines range or the adjacent 

range; it imposed a sentence significantly below that range. In this case, the district 

court based the sentence on its careful evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

in the unique circumstances of this case and imposed a sentence less than one-third 

of the lowest sentence in the mistaken range. There is no reasonable probability the 
-4- 

district court would have imposed a lighter sentence but for the error. Under plain 

error review, we conclude the stated Guidelines range mistake did not seriously 

affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 

Next, Chandler argues the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable 

sentence by failing to give appropriate weight to mitigating circumstances. “Where, 

as here, a sentence imposed is within the advisory guideline range, we typically 

accord it a presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Campbell, 986 F.3d 

782, 800 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, the “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.” United States v. Barber, 4 F.4th 689, 692 (8th Cir. 2021) 

(citation omitted). Even so, “[t]he district court has wide latitude to weigh the 

[revocation-specific] § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater 

weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” Id. (citation omitted).

The district court did not fail to consider relevant mitigating factors. The 

district court was aware of Chandler’s history, mental and physical health, and 

personal and financial responsibilities, which were discussed during the revocation 

hearing. The district court affirmed it had read the letters submitted on Chandler’s 

behalf. Chandler spoke during the revocation hearing. The district court specifically 

noted it was required to consider the factors set forth in § 3553 and view the 

Guidelines range as advisory. Ultimately, we view Chandler’s argument as a 

disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the relevant § 3553(a) factors. 

Such disagreement is insufficient to establish that a sentence is substantively 

unreasonable, especially in light of Chandler’s within-Guidelines-range sentence. 

See United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673–74 (8th Cir. 2021) (noting a 

sentencing “court has ‘wide latitude’ to assign weight to give factors[ ] and . . . ‘may 

give some factors less weight than a defendant prefers or more weight to other 

factors, but that alone does not justify reversal’”). Accordingly, the district court did 
-5- 

not abuse its substantial discretion of imposing a revocation sentence of eight 

months. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________