United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2644

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Andrew Indelicato Peterson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: April 4, 2017

 Filed: June 20, 2017

____________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Andrew Indelicato Peterson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). The
district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum 1

and Guidelines range. Having jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Peterson was a member of a street gang that fired 30 shots toward a

Minneapolis hospital on August 26, 2014. He did not shoot a gun himself but had

possessed the ammunition used in the attack. Pedestrians in front of the hospital were

forced to run for cover. One bullet came dangerously close to an infant. No one was

injured in the attack. On January 5, 2015, Peterson was arrested for possession of

burglary tools. He was serving that state sentence when, in August 2015, he was

indicted for participating in the hospital attack. Peterson claims the district court

violated his due process rights by failing to rule on his objections to the Presentence

Investigation Report (PSR) and abused its discretion by making his federal sentence

consecutive to his state sentence.

The district court properly chose not to rule on Peterson’s objections to the

PSR because the objected-to material did not affect sentencing. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 32(i)(3)(B). Even so, Peterson argues the objected portions should be stricken and

he should be resentenced. Rule 32 does not require striking the objected-to material. 

United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726, 735 (8th Cir. 2016). “A defendant has no

right to be resentenced when the district court expressly states it did not rely on the

challenged information in sentencing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

This court reviews consecutive or concurrent sentencing for reasonableness. 

United States v. Poe, 764 F.3d 914, 916 (8th Cir. 2014). This is similar to an abuse

of discretion review. United States v. Mathis, 451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir. 2006). 

This court reviews for abuse of discretion by first, examining for procedural errors

and second, reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United States

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

-2-
v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912, 918 (8th Cir. 2010). District courts have wide and broad

discretion to order a consecutive sentence to an undischarged sentence. Id. at 920.

 

Peterson argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a

consecutive sentence. See id. at 920-21. The district court explained its reason for

imposing a consecutive sentence—that the crime was “one of the most despicable

crimes” it had seen. The district court did not procedurally err because it referenced

the § 3553(a) factors and the considerations in U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment 4. Id. at

920. Peterson’s sentence, within the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable.

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-