United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2705

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Spencer Mason

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________ 

Submitted: March 13, 2023

Filed: April 28, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Spencer Mason appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district 

court1 after he 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). We affirm. 

1

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

Western District of Arkansas.
-2- 

On November 8, 2021, law enforcement received a tip from a confidential 

source that Mason was driving a stolen car while possessing a 9mm pistol and large 

amounts of methamphetamine. Mason was eventually arrested near Springdale, 

Arkansas. When a Washington County Sheriff’s Office deputy attempted the traffic 

stop, Mason fled at a high rate of speed, reaching 90 miles per hour. During the 

chase, Mason ran traffic lights, drove the wrong way and through a fence, and tossed 

the pistol from the vehicle before crashing into a semi-truck and rolling into a ditch. 

Law enforcement searched Mason’s vehicle, finding a syringe, a spoon with 

methamphetamine residue, and stolen tools. The officers also retrieved the 

discarded loaded pistol. Mason told the arresting officers that he had found the pistol

in an unlocked car, and acknowledged he was prohibited from possessing a firearm 

due to his status as a felon. 

Mason pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, 

the district court calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 37 to 46 

months. In considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court 

identified and weighed both aggravating and mitigating factors. As aggravating 

factors, the district court considered the severity of the offense, including Mason’s

possession of a stolen loaded handgun, operation of a stolen vehicle, and attempted 

escape from law enforcement in a dangerous high-speed chase while under the 

influence of methamphetamine. The district court also noted Mason’s prior federal 

convictions for bank fraud and possession of stolen mail, and subsequent 

revocations. In mitigation, the district court acknowledged Mason’s addiction and 

mental health and the role they played in his criminal conduct. Ultimately, the court 

determined the advisory Guidelines range was insufficient and imposed a 63-month

term of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. 

On appeal, Mason asserts the above-Guidelines sentence was substantively 

unreasonable. “We review all sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines 

range, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Pepper, 

518 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). A district court abuses its 

discretion when it “(1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received 
-3- 

significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; 

or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits 

a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Palkowitsch, 36 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 

2022) (quotation omitted). Where, as here, the district court varies from the 

Guidelines range, we are “not permitted to apply a presumption of 

unreasonableness” and “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due 

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify 

the extent of the variance.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). 

While Mason contends the district court abused its discretion by giving 

insufficient weight to certain factors, such as his history of substance abuse and

mental illness, the sentencing court “has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors 

in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an 

appropriate sentence.” United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009). 

To be entitled to a new sentencing hearing, Mason must demonstrate more than the 

district court disagreed with his view of the weight to be given certain sentencing 

factors. United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 

The record demonstrates the district court was thoroughly aware of Mason’s 

history of methamphetamine addiction and mental health history and took these 

factors into consideration when imposing the sentence. The district court found the 

continued threat Mason posed to public safety and his lengthy criminal history 

outweighed his addiction and mental health issues. The court acted within its broad 

discretion in determining the appropriate sentence. See United States v. Drew, 9 

F.4th 718, 726 (8th Cir. 2021) (determining the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in varying upward by 67 months after considering the defendant’s 

criminal history, the need for respect for the law, and public safety). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________