United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-3061

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antonio Lashawn Warfield

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: March 17, 2023

Filed: April 28, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Warfield pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and was sentenced by the district 

court1 to a 105-month term of imprisonment to be followed by three years of 

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa.
-2- 

supervised release. On appeal, Warfield argues the district court procedurally erred 

when it failed to adequately explain its upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)

and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

On August 14, 2019, Warfield accompanied a female companion to a pawn 

shop where the female purchased a Taurus G2C, 9mm semi-automatic pistol. 

Warfield is a previously convicted felon. About a month later, a concerned citizen 

called 9-1-1 and reported that Warfield had a gun and was threatening to shoot 

people. The Davenport police were dispatched and spoke to witnesses who 

described several cars Warfield drove, including a silver Chrysler 300. 

Subsequently, a Davenport police officer observed Warfield, who was the sole 

occupant of the Chrysler 300, and pulled him over. During the encounter, police 

discovered marijuana and the Taurus 9mm pistol. Warfield subsequently pled guilty 

to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

A presentence investigation report was prepared that calculated 15 criminal 

history points, placing Warfield in Category VI with a total offense level of 21,

resulting in a Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months. Prior to the sentencing hearing, 

the government filed a motion for an upward departure based on an underrepresented 

criminal history.

At sentencing, Warfield asserted the unscored offenses were not particularly 

egregious and Category VI fully and fairly encompassed his criminal history. The 

district court disagreed and granted the government’s motion, noting Warfield’s 

unscored serious conduct beginning at age 13. The court listed 12 unscored offenses 

involving, in part, drug offenses, possession of stolen automobiles, domestic battery, 

felony aggravated use of a weapon, and aggravated assault. The court also recounted 

Warfield’s numerous disciplinary violations while previously in the custody of the 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), describing them as “a whole plethora of problems.” 

Similarly, while in jail pending resolution of the instant case, Warfield accumulated 

approximately 30 disciplinary violations, including, in part, assault, refusing lawful 

orders, harassing correctional staff, and multiple instances of causing facility 
-3- 

emergencies. He also fraudulently filed for and received unemployment benefits. 

The court found Warfield’s conduct is “very different” from the conduct of a typical 

Category VI defendant. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B), the court increased 

Warfield’s base offense by one level (noting it could have easily increased his 

offense level by more than one level), resulting in an adjusted Guidelines range of 

84 to 105 months. The district court sentenced Warfield to a 105-month term of 

imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release.

We review Warfield’s challenge to the adequacy of the district court’s

explanation for the upward departure under the deferential abuse of discretion 

standard and review the extent of the departure for reasonableness. See United 

States v. Green, 946 F.3d 433, 441 (8th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Section 

4A1.3(a)(1) of the Guidelines permits a district court to depart upward based on 

reliable information indicating “the defendant’s criminal history category 

substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or 

the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes.” When, as here, the 

defendant already fulfils the requirements for Category VI criminal history, “the 

court should structure the departure by moving incrementally down the sentencing 

table to the next higher offense level . . . until it finds a guideline range appropriate 

to the case.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(4)(B).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided to depart upward 

based on Warfield’s extensive criminal history. The court outlined Warfield’s

criminal history and found his record was “extensive, quite violent and continued 

even in placements such as the BOP or the jail and, of course, we have the new 

criminal conduct that happened while he was in the jail involving the unemployment 

benefit fraud that he had going on.” Warfield’s “obvious incorrigibility” is sufficient 

to support the court’s departure. See Green, 946 F.3d at 441 (“[T]he district court 

did not abuse its discretion in determining that [the defendant’s] obvious

incorrigibility demonstrates that leniency has not been effective and that as a result, 

the factors weigh in favor of a decision to upwardly depart.”) (cleaned up).
-4- 

The district court departed one level, although it suggested the circumstances 

might warrant a greater departure. We are satisfied with the district court’s 

explanation of the extent of its departure and conclude a one-level departure was 

reasonable in Warfield’s case. After the upward departure, the district court 

adequately justified its decision to impose a sentence at the top of the adjusted 

Guidelines range. The court considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) and found only one mitigating circumstance—Warfield’s decision to 

plead guilty. Rather than impose a sentence of 120 months, which the court found 

would have been appropriate, it gave Warfield some credit for acceptance of 

responsibility and sentenced him within the Guidelines range. Given the “wide 

latitude” afforded sentencing courts, United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 

(8th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), we conclude the district court did not abuse its 

substantial sentencing discretion in concluding an upward departure was warranted, 

in denying Warfield’s request for a lower sentence, and sentencing Warfield to a 

term of 105 months’ imprisonment. See Green, 946 F.3d at 441-42.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________