United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1196

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Stevie Williams, also known as Mississippi

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

Submitted: January 14, 2019

Filed: March 12, 2019 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, MELLOY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Stevie Williams pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. It 1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska.
later reduced his sentence by 72 months. After release from prison, he violated the

conditions of his supervised release. The district court sentenced him to 18 months’

imprisonment and 12 months’ supervised release. Lessthan two months after release,

he again violated the conditions of release. The district court sentenced him to 36

months’ imprisonment. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this

court affirms.

Williams believes his above guidelines sentence (guidelines range was 7-13

months) is substantively unreasonable. This court reviews the substantive

reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Beran, 751 F.3d

872, 875 (8th Cir. 2014). An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court “fails to

consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the

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

United States v. Ceballos-Santa Cruz, 756 F.3d 635, 637 (8th Cir. 2014). This court

gives district courts “wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and

assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate

sentence.” United States v. Misquadace, 778 F.3d 717, 719 (8th Cir. 2015). 

Williams admitted violating the conditions of his release by committing thirddegree domestic assault against an intimate partner. However, he argues the court

erred in sentencing him above the guidelines because it “should have recognized that

a dismissal of the charge in state court mitigated against a lengthy sentence in federal

court.” This argument is unavailing. The district court was familiar with Williams;

it presided over his initial sentencing and first revocation. Imposing the sentence, it

considered the § 3553(a) factors, the photographic evidence of the victim’s injuries, 

a recording of the victim’s account of the assault, Williams’ “repeated violations” of

conditions of release, his criminal history (which included drug charges, sexual

assault, and violation of a domestic abuse protection order), and the fact that he was

“previously a beneficiary of a downward departure or other unusual form of

-2-
leniency.” The district court fully considered the record and allowed Williams to

speak before imposing its sentence. It did not abuse its discretion. See United States

v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500, 504 (8th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases where this court

sentenced defendants outside the guidelines for reasons such as “numerous and

repeated violations of the terms of” supervised release and persistent criminal

conduct).

* * * * * * * 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-