# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 21 26

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Hur le y W al la ce

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

8, 2 01 8 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

1, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Hur le y W al la ce p le ad ed gu il ty to o ne co un t of 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. § 9 22 (g )(1 ) an d 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( a)(2 ). In do in g so W al la ce st ip ul at ed to a ve ry li m it ed fact u a l r e c i ta ti on reg ard in g hi s po ss es si on of cert ai n am m un it io n in Feb ru ary 20 16 at th e Gran d- U-Bu y lo cat ed in th e Ci ty o f St . Lo ui s. The pl ea ag reem en t al so in di cat ed th at at t he ti m e of se nt en ci ng ,aft er th e di st ric t co ur t ha d de te rm in ed th e Gui de li ne s ran ge th at ap pl ie d in th e cas e, 1 ei th er si de co ul d as k fo r a se nt en ce ab ov e o r b e l o w t ha t ran ge

. The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n r e po rt (PSR ) arri ve d at a su gg es te d Gui de li ne s ran ge of fo rty-si x to fif ty-sev en m on th s, an d n ot ed th e st at ut or y m ax im um of t en y ears

.

Pri or to se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t fi le d a se ntenci ng m em or an du m an d no ti ce of it s in te n t t o c a l l a St

. Lou is po li ce of fic er to te st ify ab ou t th e ci rcu m st an ces

s u r r ou nd in g th e ch arg e to whi ch W al la ce pl ed gu il ty, sp eci fic al ly th at vi de o

su rv e i l l a n ce rev eal ed th at W al la ce en te red th e st or e wit h an ot he r m an an d th e two

were arg ui ng , th e al te rcat io n es cal at ed , pu nc he s were th ro wn, an d W al la ce ul ti m at el y pr od uc ed a ha nd gu n fro m hi s po ck et , sh ot th e vi ct im in th e ne ck , an d cal m ly walk ed

ou t of th e st or e. W al la ce res po nd ed th at th is te st im on y was un ne ces sa ry be cau se he ha d al read y st ip ul at ed to fact s su pp or ti ng t h e ch arg e. W al la ce ad di ti on al ly arg ue d th at be c a u s e t he re ha d be en no ob jecti on s by ei th er pa rty to th e pr ep ared PSR, th e go ve rn m en t co ul d no t rai se th e is su e o f a n u pwa rd va ria nc e at se nt en ci ng

. The di st ric t co ur t p erm it te d t he tes ti m on y

.

The di st ric t co ur t th en va rie d up ward fro m th e su gg es te d Gui de li ne s ran ge an d im po se d a sen te nc e o f 10 8 m on th s. On app eal , W al la ce argu es th at th is se nt en ce is
pr oc ed ur al ly an d su bs ta nt iv el y im pr op er, bu t we fin d n e i th er to be th e cas e. "Th is

co ur t rev ie ws se nt en ces fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n." Uni te d St at es v. Dur r, 87 5 F.3 d 41 9, 42 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Und er th is st an da rd th e co ur t in it ia ll y rev ie ws a se nt en ce fo r si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r whe rei n th is co ur t rev ie ws a di st ric t co u r t ' s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s in t erp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s de

no vo

. Id

. at 42 1. If th ere is no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r, we rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss

. Here, "[a ] di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it (1 ) 'fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht '; (2 )

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ro ss , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Ea st ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-'gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or '; or (3 ) 'co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t.'" Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) ( q u o t i ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Kane , 55 2 F .3d 74 8, 7 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

Fi rs t, th ere is no le ga l ba si s fo r W al la ce's arg um en t th at th e go ve rn m en t sh ou ld

no t be al lo wed to acce pt th e co nc lu si on s of a PSR an d si m ul ta ne ou sl y se ek an up ward

va ria nc e in a pa rti cu la r cas e. And , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e i t s d i s c r e t i on in
gr an ti ng th e go ve rn m en t's ti m el y req ue st fo r an up ward va ria nc e fo ll owi ng it s rev ie w of th e m at te r in li gh t o f th e req ui si te 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.

Seco nd , W al la ce's se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. A care fu l rev ie w of th e co ur t's se nt en ci ng co ll oq uy rev eal s th e co ur t's th or ou gh reci ta ti on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s a n d di sc us si on of it s de ci si on -m ak in g in arri vi ng at th e im po se d se nt en ce. The co ur t di d no t ab us e it s br oa d di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Peep le s, 87 9 F.3 d 28 2, 28 9 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 18 ) ("Th e di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n in weig hi ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s wh en im po si ng a se nt en ce." ).

Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed he rei n we a ffi rm

.

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

-3

-