United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2354

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael L. Chadwick

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

Submitted: May 18, 2018

Filed: August 9, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BEAM and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Chadwick appeals from the district court's imposition of 62 months' 1

imprisonment following Chadwick's guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

1

Western District of Missouri. 
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He claims the court's

upward variance from the suggested Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months is

substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

On appeal, Chadwick does not dispute the underlying facts. Indeed, he was a

felon in possession of a firearm and he pleaded guilty to that charge. In December

2015, officers with the Independence, Missouri, Police Department were called to a

location to investigate a report of two suspicious males, one of whom was carrying

a rifle case. When the officers arrived, they observed two men, one of whom was

Chadwick, standing next to a backpack, a bicycle, and a blue rifle case. When

officers approached the two men, Chadwick ran, but was detained after a brief foot

chase. Afterward, officers learned that Chadwick and the other male had active

warrants and they arrested both men. In the blue rifle case was a Japanese Type 99,

7.7 mm caliber rifle, which Chadwick admitted was his. Chadwick stated he planned

to sell the rifle because he needed money. He also admitted that he knew he was

prohibited from possessing the rifle because he was a convicted felon. 

At the time Chadwick entered his plea, the district court ordered a presentence

investigation. The presentence investigation report (PSR) suggested a range of 30 to

37 months' imprisonment based on a Guidelines calculation with a total offense level

of 12 and a criminal history category of VI. The report reveals a lengthy list of

convictions and arrests for Chadwick spanning ages 16 to 39. Chadwick argues on

appeal that the district court relied upon an improper factor at sentencing–that

Chadwick had eleven children and never married–and that commenting on this fact

was an improper value judgment by the court regarding Chadwick's morals. He

additionally argues the court committed a clear error in judgment in weighing the

sentencing factors asit did, arguing that the court improperly started its analysis with

the statutory maximum of ten years as its guidepost, rather than the Guidelines range

of 30 to 37 months, and gave only passing thought to the value of Chadwick's

cooperation with law enforcement. 

-2-
This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence using a

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Waters, 883 F.3d 1022,

1028 (8th Cir. 2018). "Abuse of discretion occurs if the district court 'fails to

consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the

appropriate factors but commits a clear error [of] judgment in weighing those

factors.'" United States v. Reid, 887 F.3d 434, 438 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting United

States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2012)). "If a district court varies beyond

the Guidelines range, we consider the extent of the variance but 'give due deference

to the district court's decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,

justify the extent of the variance.'" Waters, 883 F.3d at 1028 (quoting Ferguson v.

United States, 623 F.3d 627, 631 (8th Cir. 2010)). 

At sentencing the district court focused on Chadwick's criminal history, which

included a demonstrated and repeated disrespect for the law, and a lack of deterrence

from committing crimes based on serving previoussentences for convictions. Based

on this history, and reviewing the Guidelines benchmark before it, the court

immediately acknowledged that the suggested Guidelines sentence was not in

consideration. However, also balancing the requisite factors, the court additionally

noted that it likewise did not consider the statutory maximum of 10 years appropriate

given Chadwick's cooperation with the government and the fact that he took

responsibility for his actions. Chadwick argues that the court's mention of the 32-

month sentence resulting from his most recent felony conviction demonstrates that

this factor was the driving force behind the court's analysis and the court erred in

relying upon it as a basis for varying upward in the instant case. We disagree. The

court included its discussion of that particular sentence as part of a lengthy discussion

regarding Chadwick's criminal history and particularly his lack ofrespectfor the legal

process generally. We find no abuse of discretion in the court's analysis based on a

careful reading of this sentencing colloquy. 

-3-
It is clear from the transcript that Chadwick's extensive criminal history, the

characteristics of this offense in light of all of his previous offenses, and the court's

desire to deter Chadwick from his demonstrated recidivist behavior weighed the

heaviest of all factors. The court stated that those factors, alone, fully warranted the

imposition of a statutory maximum sentence in this case. It was only upon the court's

consideration of the remaining § 3553(a) factors that the court arrived at the imposed

62-month sentence, a balancing of the requisite factors the district court is fully

equipped to make. "District courts enjoy wide latitude when applying the sentencing

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and are free to 'assign some factors greater weight than

others.'" Waters, 883 F.3d at 1028 (quoting United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828

F.3d 668, 672 (8th Cir. 2016)). 

As to the court's mention of Chadwick's eleven children, read in context, the

court's reference was in response to Chadwick's focus on his "regular contact" with

his eight-year-old daughter, whom Chadwick wanted to get home to, and which

Chadwick argued was a mitigating factor here warranting a lesser sentence. The

court, reasonably, clarified by way of a question to Chadwick's counsel that there

were eleven children, not one. That the court found the number "remarkable" does

not evince a judgment on Chadwick's morality or reliance on an impermissible factor

in its ultimate sentencing analysis. Indeed, that discussion took place outside of the

court's recitation of its pronouncement of its reasons supporting the sentence

imposed. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in arriving at the 62-month

sentence. We affirm.

_______________________________

-4-