United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3340

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Buck Otto White, also known as Timothy Joseph Hoffman

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

Submitted: October 15, 2018

Filed: December 12, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

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

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Buck Otto White of two counts of being a felon in possession

of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and two counts of

possessing stolen firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). The
district court determined that White qualified as an armed career criminal, see 18 1

U.S.C. 924(e), and White’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was 324 to 405

months. The district court varied downward and sentenced him concurrently on all

four counts to a total term of 300 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised

release. White later moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing

that he did not qualify as an armed career criminal. The district court granted the

motion and vacated White’s originalsentence. White’s revised guidelinesrange was

120 to 150 months’ imprisonment. Upon resentencing, the district court varied

upward and imposed a total sentence of 210 months’ imprisonment. This consisted

of concurrent sentences of 120 months for Counts 1 and 3 and concurrent sentences

of 90 months for Counts 2 and 4, with the two concurrent sentences to be served

consecutively. White now appeals, arguing that the revised sentence issubstantively

unreasonable. 

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “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

orirrelevant factor; or(3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those

factors commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754,

756 (8th Cir. 2011). Because White’s 210-month sentence exceeded his

recommended guidelines range, we may not apply a presumption of reasonableness

to the sentence, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, but it is an “unusual case when we reverse

a district court sentence . . . as substantively unreasonable,” United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009). 

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

-2-
White argues that the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive

sentences at resentencing when it originally imposed concurrent sentences. He notes

that the only difference between the two sentencing hearings was that he no longer

qualified as an armed career criminal and claims that the district court “obviously

sought to get as close as it felt it could get to an ACCA-like sentence . . . by using the

tactic of consecutive sentences.” But the sentencing record makes clear that the

district court adequately explained the basis for White’s revised sentence. The court

observed that it initially varied downward and imposed a 300-month sentence

because it thought that White’s original guidelines range was too high. These same

considerations led to the conclusion that White’s revised guidelines range was too

low. As the court stated, “So just as the guidelines before were too high, the

guidelines . . . don’t really take into account the full criminal history that you have.” 

White further argues that the facts of his case do not warrant a total punishment

of 210 months’ imprisonment. He maintains that he is not “a predatory offender, a

violent offender, or a gang member” but simply “a life-long methamphetamine

addict.” But the sentence reflected White’s long history of recidivism. As the court

stated, “As people get to be over the age of 35, they don’t commit crimes anymore. 

It’s not really true in your case. It just goes back—it’s very sad, you know, the start

of your experience in the criminal courts and it just never really quits.” For this

reason, the court thought White posed “a danger to the community.” White’s

extensive criminal history includes convictions for tying up and robbing three victims

at gunpoint and for striking a police officer in the head with a closed fist. During this

case, moreover, White absconded from pretrial supervision and led police on a highspeed chase on snow-covered roads through a densely populated area. We see no

basis for finding the sentence unreasonable and conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion.

For all these reasons, we affirm White’s sentence. 

______________________________

-3-