United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2573

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Rayshawn Johnson

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central 

____________ 

Submitted: April 8, 2024

Filed: June 4, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Rayshawn Montez Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams 

or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of 

methamphetamine and 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 
-2- 

841(b)(1)(B), and 846. The district court1 varied downward, sentencing him to 300 

months in prison, with a consecutive 30 months for the revocation of supervised 

release in another case. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

this court affirms.

I. 

Johnson argues his below-guidelines sentence (range was 360 months to life) 

was substantively unreasonable. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Petersen, 22 F.4th 805, 807 (8th Cir. 2022). A district court abuses its 

discretion when it “(1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received 

significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; 

or (3) considers only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a 

clear error of judgment.” Id. It “will be the unusual case when we reverse a district 

court sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—

as substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th 

Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Johnson believes the court should have given more weight to his adverse 

childhood experiences. But the court considered this, along with his lengthy 

criminal history. It said:

This is a complex, difficult, frustrating case. I have been working with 

the defendant for almost a decade now, and it makes me incredibly sad 

because the defendant is a young man. He’s only 33. He had a pretty 

horrific childhood, but he, despite all of those issues, is clearly very 

bright.

I’ve met a lot of really bad drug dealers in the sense of they’re just not 

very good at it. Unfortunately, you are very good at it. I would even 

1

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

for the Southern District of Iowa.
-3- 

say you are exceptional at it, and you are hugely successful at it, and I 

don’t know how to make you stop.

I have tried sentencing you. I have tried revoking you. I have tried 

watching you. I have tried everything I know how to do as a judge to 

get you to stop. And you’re not a small dealer. You’re not, you know, 

slinging dime bags of marijuana. You’re—you know, you sold 10,000 

fentanyl pills in one go, in one deal. You had one shipment of 

methamphetamine that was 200 pounds, and you sold it in two weeks. 

You were shipping a quarter of a million dollars at a time to Mexico to 

buy drugs.

. . . .

There’s a lot going on in your background that shows me why you 

maybe ventured down this path. I just don't know how to get you out 

of the world now. You’ve never really worked any kind of job for any 

length of time as an adult. You’ve always depended on drug dealing to 

support yourself.

. . . .

But ultimately here, under any computation, you’re facing a long time 

in jail. Ultimately, what I think the appropriate sentence here is . . . 25 

years on the first case and the 30-month term of imprisonment on the 

revocation case that has to be served consecutively because it is a 

different type of penalty that has to be imposed. So that ultimately is a 

sentence of 330 months between the two.

The court fully considered Johnson’s circumstances and did not err in declining to 

vary downward further. United States v. Deering, 762 F.3d 783, 787 (8th Cir. 2014) 

(“[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines 

range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying 

downward still further.”). 
-4- 

II. 

Johnson believes the court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence of 30 

months for his supervised release violations. Determining whether to impose 

consecutive sentences, the district court uses its discretion and considers the § 

3553(a) factors. United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789, 790 (8th Cir. 2016). The

court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion 

imposing this sentence consecutively. Id. at 790-91.

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________