United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 21-1896

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Satterfield

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________ 

Submitted: February 14, 2022

Filed: March 25, 2022 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

David Matthew Satterfield pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1

1

The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Arkansas. 
-2- 

varied upward, sentencing him to 46 months in prison. He appeals. Having 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Satterfield believes the court erred by varying upward from the guideline 

range of 30 to 37 months based on clearly erroneous facts. This court typically 

reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Isler, 983 F.3d 335, 341 (8th Cir. 

2020). The government contends Satterfield did not object at sentencing, and review 

should be for plain error. United States v. Shoulders, 988 F.3d 1061, 1063 (8th Cir. 

2021) (reviewing for plain error the court’s alleged procedural error in departing 

from the guidelines). Under either standard, Satterfield’s claim fails.

Satterfield contends the sentence relied on the erroneous determination that 

he had a prior conviction for assault. The record does not support this contention. 

Relying on facts in the presentence investigation report, the court discussed 

Satterfield’s lengthy criminal history, including an arrest for domestic battery and 

aggravated assault. Satterfield clarified that he was not convicted of those arrests, 

arguing that the court placed too much emphasis on his criminal history. The court 

noted that it discussed the arrest, not for the conviction itself, but to show “his 

propensity for violence, especially apparently when he is in an impaired state, which 

is apparently frequently.” The district court did not err, let alone plainly err, in 

relying on these facts in sentencing.

Satterfield asserts his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He believes the 

court gave too much weight to his criminal history and not enough to his mitigating 

factors. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. Isler, 983 F.3d at 341. The 

district court considered Satterfield’s mitigating factors—including his meth 

addiction, young age, family support, and cooperation during the case—noting that 

he “certainly deserves mitigating credit for all of that.” But it also considered the 

aggravating factors, including that he had “the longest rap sheet of any person that I 

have ever seen at any time before this Court who has only had about 17 years or so 

to rack up a criminal history.” According to the court, Satterfield’s “really big and 

long” criminal history demonstrates “a lack of respect for the law and for 
-3- 

deterrence.” And he’s consistently “thumbed his nose at the judicial system and 

doesn’t care what it does and he’s never been held accountable.” The court 

concluded: 

In terms of sentencing disparity, the Court sees lots of felon in 

possession cases, has lots of comparators. Your case is unique in that 

there’s this juxtaposition between relatively benign circumstances 

surrounding the offense conduct, yet this horrible pattern of your 

criminal history, lack of respect, lack of being deterred, public safety 

issue, so on and so forth.

All things considered, I don’t think that this is a guideline range case. 

I think that the aggravating circumstances that I mentioned require the 

Court, at least in my judgment, to vary upward, although perhaps not a

whole lot, but I do believe that it requires the Court to vary upward just 

because 30 to 37 months for a firearm violation in the context of this 

criminal history is not enough; is not enough, is not appropriate.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward. See United States 

v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding no abuse of discretion in 

“demonstrating with an upward departure or variance that contemptuous disregard

for the law can have serious consequences” (cleaned up)). 

* * * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________