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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 39 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.
Dy la n W. Sto ne

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 17 Fil ed : Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 7 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Dy la n W

. St on e pl ead ed gu i l t y to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). The di st ric t co u r t ad op te d th e un co nt es te d 1

The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.cal cu la ti on s of St on e’s of fen se le ve l an d cri m in al hi st or y in th e p res en te nc e rep or t, whi ch res ul te d in an ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge of 27 –3 3 m on th s. Ci ti ng

a nu m be r of fact or s, th e co ur t se nt en ced St on e to an ab ov e-Gu id el in es se nt en ce of 60

m on th s of im

pr is on m en t. St on e ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in im po si ng

an up ward va ria nc e.

W e “ rev ie w al l se nt en ces —wh et he r in si de
, jus t out sid e, or sig nif ic an tly out si de
th e Gui de li ne s ran ge —u nd er a d e f eren ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd .” Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 41 (2 00 7)

. St on e arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s 2
di sc ret io n in two way s: (1 ) by co ns id eri n g i mp r op er fact or s in de te rm in in g hi s

se nt en ce; an d (2 ) by en ga gi ng in an un reas on ab le weig hi ng of t h e s t a t ut or y

se nt en ci ng fact or s li st ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), le ad in g to an un jus ti fia bl y ex ces si ve

se nt en ce.

St on e al le ge s th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered im pr op er fac t o r s whe n, acco rd in g
to St on e, it de cl ared “ cat eg or ic al ru le s” th at req ui red im po si ng lo ng er sen te nc es fo r fed eral
, rat he r th an st at e, cri m es an d im po si ng lo ng er se nt en ces fo r a gr eat er hi st or y of reci di vi sm

. Su ch a read in g of th e tra ns cri pt , ho wev er, ta ke s ou t o f c o n t e x t two
st at em en ts th e co ur t m ad e d ur in g a lo ng er se nt en ci ng co ll oq uy. Rea d in co nt ex t, it is ap pa ren t th at th e di st ric t co ur t was no t rel y in g on cat eg or ic al ru le s, bu t in st ead was

m ak in g in di vi du al iz ed ob se rv at io ns ab ou t St on e’s p a s t c o n du ct an d th e ne ed fo r de te r r e n c e in li gh t of St on e’s hi st or y an d pe rs on al ch arac te ris ti cs

. The “ ne ed fo r

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at St on e al le ge s “ pr oc ed ur al ” as well as 2

“ su bs ta nt iv e” erro rs , an d th at th e un ob jecte d- to pr oc ed ur al erro rs sh ou ld be rev ie wed

un de r th e ev en -m or e-d efer en ti al pl ai n erro r st an da rd

. Bec au se we co nc lu de St on e is

n o t en ti tl ed to rel ie f un de r ei th er st an da rd
, we ne ed no t de ci de whi ch st an d a r d o f

rev ie w to ap pl y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Kou an gv an , 84 4 F.3 d 99 6, 99 9– 10 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (rec og ni zi ng “ ap pa ren t co nf li ct ” b et ween cas es th at cat eg or iz e co ns id erat io n of im pr op er fa c t o r a s a pr oc ed ur al erro r an d cas es cat eg or iz in g it as a ch al le ng e to

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss , bu t de cl in in g to res ol ve th e co nf li ct ); U n i t e d St at es v. O’ Co nn or , 56 7 F .3d 39 5, 3 97 & n .3 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (s am e).

-2

-de te rren ce” is an au th or iz ed —n ot an im

pr ope r— sta

tut or y fa ct or , an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d n ot err i n t ak in g i t i nt o c on si de rat io n. Se e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (B).

Si m il arl y , we are un pe r s u a d e d by St on e’s co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y weig he d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. W he n va ry in g fro m th e Gui de li ne s, “ [t]he di st ric t c o u r t mu s t ‘con si de r th e ex te nt of th e de vi at io n an d en su re th at th e jus ti fic at io n is su ffi ci en tl y co m pe ll in g to su pp or t th e de gr ee of th e va ria nc e.’” Uni te d
St at es v. Mar ti ne z, 82 1 F.3 d 98 4, 98 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Feem s t e r , 5 7 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc )). Howev er, “ ‘ext rao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces ’ are no t ne ed ed to jus ti fy a se nt en ce ou ts id e th e gu id el in e ran ge ,” ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t is va ry in g up ward

. Uni te d St at es v. Hum m in gb ird
, 74 3 F.3 d 63 6,
63 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ The di st ric t co ur t ha s wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a) fact or s in each cas e an d as si gn so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g

an ap pr op ria t e s e n t e n ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 56 9 F.3 d 37 4, 37 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t sp ec if ic al ly ad dr es se d a nu m

be r of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Fi rs t, it lo ok ed at St on e’s hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs —g iv in g sp eci fic at te nt io n to th e 3
hi s em pl oym en t hi st or y an d la ck of su cces s whe n pr ev io us ly pl aced on su pe rv is io n. The co ur t th en di sc us se d th e ne ed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er cri m es , whi ch th e

co ur t d es cri be d a s “ so m et hi ng th at I th in k i s v ery real ” wit h re sp ect to Sto ne . And
,
as no te d, th e co ur t ad dr es se d th e ne ed fo r de te rren ce. The di st ric t co ur t al so ex pr es sl y ack no wled ge d th at St on e ha d acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s of fen se an d was ho ne st wit h th e co ur t, whi ch “ he lp [ed ]” hi m fro m rece iv in g an ev en lo ng er se nt en ce. The se

co ns id erat io ns are ad eq ua te to su pp or t an up ward va ria nc e in th is cas e. See Gall
, 55 2

Alt ho ug h th e Gui de li ne s ran ge “ al read y acco un t[s ] fo r

. . . pr io r co nv ic ti on s” 3

a n d t h e d efen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y , se e Mar ti ne z, 82 1 F.3 d at 98 9, it is n o t pr oc ed ur al erro r to co ns id er th is fact or ag ai n in de te rm in in g th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce,

se e Hum m in gb ird
, 74 3 F.3 d at 63 7 (“ [T]he co ur t is req ui red to co ns id er th es e fact or s

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ).”).

-3

-U.S. at 51 (“ [We] m us t gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s d e c i s i o n t h at th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, o n a who le , just ify the ex te nt of t he va ria nc e.”).

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-4

-