# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 33 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Je rem y Lee W arre n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 5, 2 01 7 Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 5, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Je rem y Lee W arre n pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d an 1

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h Jr
., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge of 51 to 63 m on th s in pr is on

. The go ve rn m en t

m ov ed fo r an up ward va ria nc e in li gh t of W arre n’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st or y , an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e va ria nc e, se nt en ci ng hi m to 75 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t or de red th is se nt en ce to be se rv ed co ns ecu ti ve ly to an y ot he r se nt en ces im po se d in ot he r co ur ts

. W arre n ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng th e up ward va ria nc e an d in im po si ng th e se nt en ce to ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly. W e affi rm

.

W arre n arg u e s t h a t t he di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in co ns id eri ng th e

se nt e nc in g fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2
F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it (1 ) fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ; (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ; or ( 3 ) c o n s i d ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t.” Id . (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ The di st ric t co ur t ha s wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in each cas e an d as si gn

so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot h e r s in de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria te se nt en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Reynol ds
, 64 3 F.3 d 11 30
, 11 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo t i n g Uni te d
St at es v. San -Mi gu el
, 63 4 F.3 d 47 1, 47 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). To su cces sf ul ly ch al le ng e

a di st ric t co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, a de fen da nt “ m us t sh ow m or e th an th e fact th at th e di st ric t co ur t di sa gr eed wit h h i s vi ew of wha t weig ht ou gh t to be acco rd ed cert ai n sen te nc in g fact or s.” Uni te d Stat es v. Towns en d, 61 7 F.3d 99 1,
99 5 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ).

Co nt rary to W arre n’s arg um en ts , ho wev er, we can no t sa y th e d i s t r i c t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n. Fi rs t, at th e ti m e W arre n was se nt en ced fo r th e pr es en t of fen se in 20 16
, he ha d on e pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on fro m 2 0 0 4
, two fro m 20 05
, on e fro m 20 06
, on e fro m 20 10
, an d on e fro m earl ie r in 20 16 . The dis tri ct co ur t th us “ di d no t ab us e i t s di sc ret io n by pl aci ng pa rti cu la r em ph as is on [Warren ’s] co ns is te nt an d

recu rri ng cri m in al co nd uc t.” Uni te d St at es v. Je nk in s, 75 8 F.3 d 10 46
, 10 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Seco nd
, we can no t sa y th at th e d i s t r ic t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by no t

-2

-gi vi ng m or e weig ht to W arre n’s ad di ct io n to m et ha m ph et am in e, whi ch be ga n whe n he was 13 y ears ol d. As th e di st ric t co ur t an d W arre n’s co un se l no te d at se nt en ci ng , W arre n was pr ev io us ly gi ve n th e op po rtu ni ty—bu t f a i l ed —t o co m pl et e a dr ug
tre at m en t pro gr am

. The di st ric t cou rt fur th er enco ur ag ed W arre n to ta ke ad va nt ag e

o f t he dr ug pr og ram in th e fed eral pr is on syste m , whi ch th e di st ric t c o u r t ch arac te riz ed as “ th e be st in th e wor ld .” Fi na ll y , to th e ex te nt th e di st ric t co ur t

ex pr es se d su rp ris e th at W a r r e n co nt in ue d to co m m it fel on y cri m es aft er a 20 14 acci de nt le ft hi m pa rti al ly pa ral y zed fro m th e wais t do wn, we can no t sa y th e di st ric t

c o ur t ga ve “ si gn ifi can t weig ht ” to th is fact or

. See Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 4 6 1

. Th e d i st ric t co ur t, as W arre n no te s on ap pe al
, ex pr es se d it s su rp ris e as a m er e

“ aft ert ho ug ht .” Acco rd in gl y , W arre n ha s no t sh own m or e t h a n d is ag reem en t wit h ho w th e d is tri ct co ur t wei gh ed th e fac to rs un de r § 3 55 3( a). Town se nd , 61 7 F.3 d at 99 5.

In li gh t of th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s co ns id erat io n of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, we al so

can n o t s a y th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s 12 -m on th up ward va ria nc e was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . See Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 ) (“ [I]f th e se nt en ce is ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , th e co ur t m ay no t ap pl y a pr es um pt io n of

un reas on ab le ne s s

. It m ay co ns id er th e ex te nt of th e de vi at io n, bu t m us t gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le
, jus ti fy th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e.”). Nor can we sa y it was un reas on ab le to im po se th e

se nt en ce co ns ecu t i v e t o Warre n’s ot he r se nt en ces

. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 84 (b ) (s en te nc in g co ur t mu s t c on si de r th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in de te rm in in g whe th er to im po se a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce); Uni te d St at es v. Bryant
, 60 6 F.3 d 91 2, 92 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (s ta ti ng th at an ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie ws im po si ti on of co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces fo r

“ reas on ab le ne ss ” an d th at , ge ne ral ly, “ th e r e i s no req ui rem en t th at a di st ric t co ur t
pr ov id e a se pa rat e st at em en t of reas on s” fo r it s co ns id erat io n of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s whe n i m po si ng a co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e).

W e th eref

or e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -3

-