# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 23 71

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Hun te r Dean Bo nn el l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 13, 2 01 9
Fi le d: Aug us t 2 , 20 19 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, W OLLMAN, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Hun te r Dean Bo nn el l pl ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of am m un it io n,

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m 1

Th e H on or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.to 84 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, co n s e c u t i ve to hi s un di sc ha rg ed st at e se nt en ces

. He

ap pe al s. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

The pa rti es ag ree U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .3(d ) co nt ro ls he re:

In an y ot he r cas e in vo lv in g an un di sc ha rg ed te rm of im pr is on m en t, th e

se nt en ce fo r th e in st an t of fen se may be im

po se d to r u n c o n c u rren tl y , pa rti al ly co nc ur ren tl y , o r co ns ecu ti ve ly t o th e p rio r un di sc ha rg ed ter m of i mp r i s on m en t to ach ie ve a reas on ab le pu ni sh m en t fo r th e in st an t of fen se

.

U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .3(d ) (em ph a s i s ad de d)

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 84 (a) (“ [I]f a te rm of

im pr is on m en t i s i m

po se d o n a de fen da nt who is al read y su bjec t t o a n u nd is ch arg ed

te rm of im

pr is on m en t, th e te rm s may ru n co nc ur ren tl y or co ns ecu ti ve ly.”) (em ph as is

ad de d)

. Sect io n 5G1 .3(d ) do es no t req ui re a fed eral se nt en ce to ru n co ns ecu ti ve to

an un di sc ha rg ed st at e se nt en ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Becke r , 63 6 F.3 d 40 2, 40 8 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ [A] di st ric t co ur t ha s th e di sc ret io n to im po se a se nt en ce co nc ur ren tl y or

co ns ecu ti ve ly.”)

.

Bo nn el l ch al le ng es th e ap pl ic at io n of se ct io n 5G1 .3(d ), arg ui ng th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d “ in co nc lu di ng th at a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce was req ui red .” Thi s co ur t fir st

lo ok s fo r pr oc ed ur a l e r r o r, Uni te d St at es v. Th or ne , 89 6 F.3 d 86 1, 86 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 18 ), rev ie win g “ th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to im po se co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces fo r

reas on ab le ne ss .” Uni te d St at es v. Rut he rf or d

, 59 9 F.3 d 81 7

, 8 2 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ),

ci ti ng Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7)

. Howev er, Bo nn el l di d no t ob ject

to co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces at se nt en ci ng

. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws fo r pl ai n erro r. Und er pl ai n erro r rev ie w, Bo nn el l m us t sh ow (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th at is pl ai n, (3 ) th at affe ct s

su b s t a nt ia l rig ht s, an d (4 ) th at “ se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic

rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Kel le r , 41 3 F.3 d 70 6, 71 0 (8 th

Ci r. 20 05 ), qu ot in g J

oh ns on v. Uni te d S ta te s , 52 0 U.S. 4 61 , 46 6- 67 (19 97 ).

-2

-The di st ric t co ur t s ai d:

Now, real is ti cal ly th e st at e syste m is ve ry , ve ry ov ercr owd ed th e way th e fed eral syste m is so wha t we se e ha pp en typic al ly is y ou ge t a se nt en ce of th is si ze, y ou ge t an 84 -m on th se nt en ce, th e st at es se es th at

, an d th ey im m ed ia te ly ki ck y ou to th e f e d e r al go ve rn m en t so in pr act ic al te rm s,

e ve n if I ru n th es e se nt en ces co ns ecu ti ve ly, whi ch I th in k u n d e r t h e G ui de li ne s an d un de r va rio us cas e la w is th e rig ht th in g to do

, in

pr act ic al te rm s it do e s n ’t mea n y ou are go in g to do two co m pl et e

se nt en ces

. I ha ve y et to se e th e st at e act ua ll y ke ep so m eb od y whe n th ey kn ow t h e f

e d eral go ve rn m en t wan ts th em an d so I do or de r he re, be cau se th es e were s e p a r at e co nv ic ti on s, th ey ’re se rio us co nv ic ti on s,

an d y ou r rev oc at io n ha d li tt le to do or was on ly in pa rt ba se d up on wha t ha pp en ed th at br ou gh t y ou to Fed eral Co ur t, I do or de r th es e se nt en ces
to ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly, th e fed eral se nt en ce to ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly to th e
st at e se nt en ce as no t e d in PSR Para gr ap hs 36

, 38

, an d 39 ; bu t in

pr act ic al te rm s, Mr. Bo nn el l, the y ’re go in g to al m os t im m ed ia te ly gi ve

y ou to th e fed eral pri so n s en te nc e an d s o t ha t wi ll di sc ha rg e y ou r st at e

se nt en ce.

Now, if th at do es n’t ha pp en , le t m e kn ow; bu t I am gu es si ng th at wit hi n
a p eri od of m on th s t ha t i s wh at is go in g t o h ap pe n.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err. Not hi ng in th e reco rd in di cat es th e co ur t

“ co nc lu de d th at it was req ui red to im po se a co ns e c u t iv e se nt en ce.” Rat he r, it

reco gn iz ed th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s a s “ ad vi so ry ,” an d no te d it s op ti on s of

im po si ng th e s e n t e n ce to “ ru n co nc ur ren tl y or co ns ecu ti ve ly or so m e co m bi na ti on

th ereo f.” Se e Rut he rf

or d

, 59 9 F.3 d at 82 1 (“ A se nt en ci ng co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er th e
Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on as a fir st st ep to fin di ng a r e a s on ab le se nt en ce,” bu t no t on e

th at m an da te s a res ul t). The co ur t reas on ed th at a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce was “ th e rig ht

th in g to do ” ba se d on th e Gui de li ne s an d cas e la w. As th e reco rd sh ows , th e di st ric t

co ur t p ro pe rly int erp ret ed sec ti on 5G1 .3 as di sc ret io na ry , no t m an da to ry

.

-3

-The di st ric t co ur t’s di sc us si on of th e pr is on syste m in pr act ic al te rm s al so is no t

erro r. Se e Becke r , 63 6 F.3 d at 40 6 ( t h e d i s tri ct co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err in m ak in g

co m m en ts th at “ were m erel y an acad em ic di sc us si on ” of “ wha t m ig ht ha pp en in th e

st at e syste m ”). The di st ric t j ud ge ack no wled ge d s he was “ gu es si ng ” whe n Bon ne ll

wou ld be rel eas ed to fed er a l c u s to dy

. Se e id

. , at 40 7- 08 (n o pl ai n erro r whe n th e

se nt en ci ng co ur t reco gn iz ed th e po ss ib il it y of earl y pa ro le was a “ gr eat un kn own ”).

“ The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ba se it s de ci si on to im po se a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce so le ly

on th e po ss ib il it y of [Bo nn el l’s] earl y rel eas e f r o m st at e pr is on

. Mo reo ve r, th at

po ss ib il it y was no t a c l e a r l y im pr op er co ns id erat io n.” Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ja mes , 42 8 F. App x. 53 3, 53 6 (6t h Cir. 20 11 ). In fact

, th e co ur t pro pe rly co ns id ered “ [t]he

ti m e se rv ed on th e un di sc ha rg ed se nt en ce an d th e ti m e li ke ly t o b e s e r v ed be fo re
rel eas e,” “ [t]he fact th at th e pr io r un di sc ha rg ed se nt en ce m ay ha ve be en im po se d in

st at e co ur t rat he r th an fed eral co ur t,” an d “ [a ]n y ot he r ci rcu m st an ce rel ev an t to th e
de te rm in at io n of an ap pr op ria te se nt en ce.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .3(d ), cm t. n.4 (A)(i ii –v ).

Eve n if Bo nn el l co ul d sh ow erro r, hi s cl ai m fai ls at s t e p t hr ee of pl ai n- erro r

rev ie w. He m

us t sh ow a “ reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y ” th at bu t fo r th e erro r he wou ld ha ve

rece iv ed a m or e fav or ab le se nt en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Pir an i

, 40 6 F.3 d 54 3, 54 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ). The di st ric t co ur t th or ou gh ly rev ie wed Bo nn el l ’s c r i mi na l

hi st or y , m en ta l heal th

, care er asp ira ti on s, fam il y ci rcu m st an ces , pa ro le op ti on s, an d

n e e d f o r t he se nt en ce im

po se d. The di st ric t co ur t sa id th at it “ co ns id ered al l of th e

fact or s un de r 35 53 (a) an d th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s.” Se e Uni te d St at es v. La th am , 66 7

F. App x. 59 4, 59 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ The di st ric t co ur t’s th or ou gh di sc us si on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s le av es no do ub t why it im po se d a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce.”)

. Bo nn el l

can no t sh ow a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a m or e fav or ab le

se nt en ce ab se nt an y al le ge d erro r. Se e Pir an i

, 40 6 F.3 d at 55 3 (“ [S]ent en ci ng at th e
bo tt om of th e ran ge is th e no rm fo r m an y jud ge s, s o it is in su ffi ci en t, with ou t m or e,

to de m on st rat e a reas on a b l e p r ob ab il it y th at th e co ur t wou ld ha ve im po se d a le ss er

se nt en ce.”)

.

-4

-The se nt en ce al so is su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. “ A di st ric t c o u r t a b u se s it s

di sc ret io n an d im

po se s an un reas on ab le se nt en ce whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t

an d si gn ifi can t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or

co ns id ers th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng

th os e fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Min er , 54 4 F.3 d 93 0, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The di st ric t

co ur t cal cu la te d th e (u no bjec te d to ) Gui de li ne s ran ge , co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a)

fact or s, an d he ard arg um en ts

. Se e Becke r , 63 6 F.3 d at 40 8 (n o ab us e of a di sc ret io n
whe re a di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered co un se l’s arg um en ts

, th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , an d th e § 3 55 3( a) facto rs in im

po si ng a co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e); Rut he rf or d , 59 9 F .3d at 8 21
(s am e )

. The di st ric t co ur t weig he d th e pr op er fact or s an d reas on ab ly im po se d a

co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce at th e lo w en d of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Se e Uni te d St at es v.

Pete rs on , 86 9 F.3 d 62 0, 62 1 (8 th C ir. 20 17 ) (“ Dis tri ct co ur ts ha ve wid e an d br oa d

di sc ret io n t o o rd er a co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e to an un di sc ha rg ed sen te nc e.”)

.

The di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in sen te nc in g B on ne ll

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-