United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3887

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Nicholas D. Dismuke, also known as Nicolas, also known as Crucial Cujo

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: December 12, 2022

Filed: December 27, 2022 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas Dismuke pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and

brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The district court1

1The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.
imposed a within-guideline-range sentence of 46 months on the possession count and 

a consecutive 180-month sentence on the brandishing count, a 96-month upward

variance. Dismuke appeals his 180-month sentence.

At sentencing, a mitigation specialist2

 testified about mitigating biological,

sociological, and environmental factors in Dismuke’s background. In addition, a

licensed forensic and clinical psychologist provided a report and testified about

mitigating circumstances from a psychological perspective. The district court

concluded Dismuke was likely to re-offend based in part on the psychologist’s report. 

Dismuke argues this finding was clearly erroneous and amounted to procedural error. 

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Dismuke

argues specifically that the report discussed factors from early in his life and spoke

about his likelihood to offend in the first instance rather than his likelihood to reoffend. 

Dismuke’s argument fails for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether the court

misinterpreted the report. Although the report was written in the past tense it did not

indicate how the factors that made Dismuke likely to offend in the past have changed. 

The factors laid out in the report as making it likely Dismuke would offend still exist. 

It was reasonable for the district court to view the report as indicating Dismuke was

likely to re-offend. Second, the report was only one of many factors the court

considered during sentencing. Even without the psychologist’s report, there was

ample evidence to conclude Dismuke was likely to re-offend. We find no procedural

error. 

Dismuke also argues the sentence is unreasonable because the district court

ignored mitigating history and imposed a sentence greater than necessary to satisfy

2The mitigation specialist, Tricia Russell, also works as a capital conflicts

attorney with the Arkansas Public Defender Commission.

-2-
the purposes set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). We review the substantive

reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461. Here, the district court reviewed all the mitigating

evidence, did not weigh any improper factors, and committed no clear errors of

judgment. Id. Additionally, the district court made a specific finding that the

sentence imposed was necessary to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors. See United States

v. Parker, 762 F.3d 801, 812 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Where [a] district court in imposing

a sentence makes ‘an individualized assessment based on the facts presented,’

addressing the defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of the § 3553(a)

factors, such sentence is not unreasonable.”) (citation omitted). 

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-3-