United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1388

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Deshawn Tyrone Braziel

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: January 9, 2023

Filed: June 7, 2023 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Deshawn Tyrone Braziel pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm. His Guidelines range was 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment. The district court1

1The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.
varied upward and sentenced him to 108 months’ imprisonment. Braziel appeals,

arguing that his sentence is unjust when compared to similarly situated defendants.

We affirm.

The district court began its sentencing analysis by acknowledging the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. It remarked that a 108-month sentence was sufficient but

not greater than necessary to, among other things, “avoid unwarranted disparities

between [Braziel’s] sentence . . . and the sentences of defendants with similar records

who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” R. Doc. 76, at 20:4–7.

The district court noted that this was Braziel’s fifth adult felony conviction and

that he has “a substantial criminal history [that] spans almost 20 years, and that

includes numerous felony and misdemeanor offenses and probation violations.” Id.

at 20:18–21. The district court also noted that Braziel’s prior sentences had failed to

deter him from committing crimes. The court specifically found that Braziel’s

criminal history indicated “an extreme disregard, disrespect for the law and that a

significant punishment is warranted to both deter [Braziel] from committing crimes

in the future as well as to protect the public from [him].” Id. at 21:1–5.

The district court discussed Braziel’s proffered mitigating factors. These

included his lack of a father figure, witnessing his mother being abused, being shot

in the head at age 13, and associating with a street gang at an early age. The court

acknowledged that Braziel “may have felt the need to have a gun to protect

[him]self.” Id. at 21:18–19. However, the court concluded that these circumstances

did not excuse his behavior.

On appeal, Braziel argues that the district court procedurally erred by ignoring

his sentencing-disparity argument and three cases involving similar charges and

defendants. Braziel also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

-2-
because mitigating circumstances compel less prison time in comparison to those

three cases. We disagree.

“When we review the imposition of sentences, whether inside or outside the

Guidelines range, we apply a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States

v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “We review a district court’s sentence in two steps: first, we review for

significant procedural error; and second, if there is no significant procedural error, we

review for substantive reasonableness.” United States v. O’Connor, 567 F.3d 395,

397 (8th Cir. 2009).

First, the district court did not procedurally err by ignoring Braziel’s

sentencing-disparity argument. When a defendant presents non-frivolous arguments

for a variance, “the judge will normally go further and explain why he has rejected

those arguments.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). But “not every

reasonable argument advanced by a defendant requires a specific rejoinder by the

judge.” United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 2008). When a district

court does not expressly mention a party’s arguments, but it is clear from the record

that “the district court was aware of [the] arguments, . . .we . . . presume that the

district court considered and rejected them.” United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 910,

922 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding the district court was aware of an argument raised in

defendant’s sentencing memorandum and referred to at sentencing hearing); see also

United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding the district court

did not procedurally err by not expressly addressing defendant’s argument presented

in sentencing memorandum because the record demonstrated that the district court

read the memorandum and that it “was aware of the relevant factors and that it

considered them when determining [the defendant]’s sentence”).

Here, Braziel made the district court aware of his argument and the three

related cases when he raised them at sentencing. And the district court expressly

-3-
stated that it considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. “[T]he

absence of comment on [Braziel’s] argument ‘does not mean that it was not

considered.’” United States v. Miller, 857 F. App’x 877, 879 (8th Cir. 2021)

(unpublished per curiam) (quoting Black, 670 F.3d at 881). The distinctions that

Braziel makes for each of his cited cases fail to show that the district court abused its

discretion in determining his sentence based on the facts and factors it weighed

relative to him. Nor does Braziel cite any controlling authority for the proposition that

district courts are required to expressly compare the sentences of defendants in prior

cases and make findings about why each subsequent defendant deserves more or less

prison time in order to satisfy its obligation to avoid unwarranted disparity. Under

Johnson, the district court did not procedurally err.2

Second, Braziel’s sentence is substantively reasonable because the district

court adequately addressed his mitigating circumstances. “Simply because the district

court weighed relevant factors . . . more heavily than [Braziel] would prefer does not

mean the district court abused its discretion.” United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175,

1179 (8th Cir. 2011). District courts are accorded substantial discretion in sentencing,

and the record in this case indicates that the district court considered Braziel’s

proffered mitigation evidence and found it wanting. His criminal history includes 11

adult convictions, 4 of which are felonies. Several of his past convictions were violent

in nature. The court also noted his intransigent recividism. Braziel has not shown that

the district court erred in weighing his mitigation evidence.

2Braziel also argues, without any supporting caselaw, that the court failed to

address why his extensive criminal history warranted an upward variance when his

criminal history score was the lowest score qualifying for a criminal history category

VI. “[W]e regularly decline to consider cursory or summary arguments that are

unsupported by citations to legal authorities.” United States v. Marshall, 891 F.3d

716, 720 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We decline

to do so here.

-4-
Accordingly, we affirm Braziel’s sentence.

______________________________

-5-