# 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- 16 79

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

Lore nz o T. Bu rn s

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: Apri l 1 5, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ne 17 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Lore nz o Bu rn s ap pe al s hi s 62 -m on th se nt en ce fo r 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. §§ 9 2 2 ( g ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ), arg ui ng th at th edi st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ap pl y in g an up ward va ria nc e fro m th e to p of hi s 1 Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Hav in g juri sd ic t i on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af

fir m

.

On Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 16 , Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri po li ce of fic ers st op pe d Bu rn s fo r a tra ffi c vi ol at io n, de te rm in ed he ha d ou ts ta nd in g warra nt s an d no va li d dr iv er’s li cen se , an d arre st ed hi m

. A su bs eq ue nt in ve nt or y se arch of Bu rn s’s ve hi cl e rev eal ed

a l o a d e d ha nd gu n. The of fic ers de te rm in ed Bu rn s ha d a fel on y co nv ic ti on an d de ta in ed hi m

.

Bu rn s was i n d i c t e d on an d pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of be in g a fel on in
po ss es si on of a fir earm

. The di st ric t cou rt det erm in ed , ba se d o n a n o ffen se le ve l of 15 an d a cri m in al hi st or y

pl aci ng hi m

in Cat eg or y V, th at Bu rn s’s Guid el in es ran ge

was 37 to 46 m on th s. The di st ric t co ur t th en co ns id ered th e se nt en ci ng fact or s li st ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). As pa rt of th is di sc us si o n , t h e di st ric t co ur t st at ed , “ The de te rren ce th in g.

. . . You do n’t ge t le ss ti m e fo r t h e mo r e c rime y ou co m m it

. Oth erwi se , th a t ’s n o t g o i n g t o wor k.

. . . One of th e th in gs we lo ok at is li ke ho w

m uc h ti m e ha s he g o t i n s t a t e c ou rt? Tha t ha sn ’t d et erre d hi s be ha vi or

. He’s he re. W e lo ok at th at .” Sen t. Tr. 14 , Dis t. Ct

. Dkt

. 29

. In ad di ti on to de te rren ce, th e di st ric t

co ur t em ph as iz ed Bu rn s’s pe rs on al an d cri m in al hi st or y , th e ne ed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er cri m es , an d th e ne ed to av oi d un warra n t e d s e nt en ce di sp ari ty. It ul t i mat el y de ci de d to va ry up ward ba se d on th es e fact or s an d ap pl ie d a 16 -m on th
up ward va ria nc e, se nt en ci ng Bu rn s t o 6 2 m on th s i m pr is on m en t.

On ap pe al , Bu rn s a r g u e s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le b e c au se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t be gi n it s se nt en ci ng an al y si s wit h a pr op e r l ycal cu la te d Gui de li ne s ran ge bu t, in st ead , di sr eg ard ed th e Gui d e l i n e s ran ge an d

The Hon or ab le Dav id G r e go ry Kay s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-p r o c e e d e d o n th e be li ef th at a de fen da nt sh ou ld no t be se nt en ced to a te rm of

im pr iso nm en t sh or te r th an a pr ev io us ly-im po se d se nt en ce. W e rev ie w the subs ta nti ve

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Un it ed Sta te s v . Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s [s en te nc in g] di s c r e t i o n

. . . 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 o r s

. ” U n i t ed St at es v. Mi ne r, 54 4 F .3d 93 0, 9 32 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

The di st ric t co ur t m

us t co ns id er th e S e n t e n ci ng Gui de li ne s in it s se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io n, b ut it is no t bo un d by t he reco m m en de d Gui de li ne s ran ge . S ee Gal l

v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 46 -4 7 (2 00 7)

. The di st ric t co ur t m us t al so co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th ou gh it ne ed no t in di vi du al ly di sc us s each fact or

. Uni te d St at es

v. W hi te Face , 38 3 F.3 d 73 3, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Dis tri ct co ur ts ha ve br oa d di sc ret io n whe n ap pl y in g th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d ne ed no t fin d “ ex tr a o r di na ry ci rcu m st an ces ” to im

po se a se nt en ce hi gh er th an th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Gall , 55 2 U.S.
at 47 , 51

.

W hi le th e di st ric t co ur t’s rem ark to Bu rn s in di cat in g th at de fen da nt s do no t ge t sh or te r se nt en ce s f

o r co m m it ti ng m or e cri m e m ay be in co rrec t as an in va ria bl e

su m m at io n of se nt en ci ng la w, th at rem ark , on it s own , do es no t co ns ti tu te rev ers ib le

erro r. See Un it ed Sta te s v . Dace, 8 42 F.3d 10 67 , 10 70 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er curi am ) (u ph ol di ng an 18 -m on th up ward va ria nc e as su bs t a n t iv el y reas on ab le whe n th e di st ric t co ur t to ld th e de fen da nt th at “ y ou do n’t ge t le ss t i me t h e m or e fel on ie s y ou

co mm i t ” b ut ba se d it s de ci si on on th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s)

. The di st ric t co ur t he re

s p e ci fic al ly st at ed th at it co ns id ered th e Gui de li ne s ran ge an d al l th e § 35 5 3 ( a ) fact or s. It ex pl ic it ly di sc us se d at le as t fiv e of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s at se nt en ci ng an d

ex p l ai ne d ho w each fact or affe ct ed it s se nt en ci ng an al y si s. It th en im po se d an up ward va ria nc e ba se d on Bu rn s’s cri m in al hi st or y , th e ne ed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic , an d

“ al l t ho se ot he r fac to rs [it ha d] jus t s ta te d.” Sen t. Tr. 1 5.

-3

-Bas ed on th e di st r i c t c o u r t’s own wor ds at se nt en ci ng , it di d no t ig no re th e

G u i d e l i n es ran ge an d co ns id ered al l th e ap pr op ria te fact or s in arri vi ng at it s

se nt en ci ng de ci si on

. W e th eref or e de c l i n e t o fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n i n a pp lying an up ward va ria nc e in th is cas e.

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

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

-4

-