United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1732

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jevon Strayhorn

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 17-1734

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee

v.

Jevon Strayhorn

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeals from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________
Submitted: January 8, 2018

 Filed: January 24, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jevon Strayhorn appeals his 57-month sentence, following a guilty plea, to

being a felon in possession of a firearm. Strayhorn contends the district court

1

procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain why it did not take his suggestion

to sentence him below the Guidelines range, and instead sentenced him to the top of

the 46 to 57-month range. Strayhorn further contends that the sentence was

substantively unreasonable. We disagree on both counts.

In reviewing Strayhorn's sentencing challenge, we first ensure that the district

court committed no significant procedural error, which would include failing to

sufficiently explain its sentence. United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 378 (8th

Cir. 2009). If the sentence is procedurally sound, we evaluate the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. Further,

a sentence imposed within the calculated Guidelines range is presumed reasonable. 

United States v. Parker, 871 F.3d 590, 608 (8th Cir. 2017). The presumption may be

rebutted, but it is the defendant's burden to do so. United States v. Herra-Herra, 860 

F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2017).

The district court did not err procedurally because it explained its reasons for

the chosen sentence. Our review of the record indicatesthat the district court was not

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri. 

-2-
inclined to give Strayhorn a below-range sentence given his history of recidivism,

including the fact that he committed the current offense while on supervised release

2

from a previous federal felon-in-possession conviction. The district court explained

the sentence well enough that we can discern on appeal why the district court chose

the sentence that it did. See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 671 (8th

Cir. 2016) ("[W]here a matter is conceptually simple, and the record makes clear that

the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, the law does not require

the judge to write or say more."). Nor has Strayhorn rebutted the presumption that

his within-Guidelines-range sentence is reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Indeed, Strayhorn was given a consecutive revocation sentence of 15 months

2

in prison on the same day that his felon-in-possession sentence was imposed. 

Although Strayhorn appears to have filed an appeal in both cases and was assigned

two case numbers, in briefing he only challenges the 57-month felon-in-possession

sentence.

-3-