Court Opinion

ID: 9947289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 16:01:38.657866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.238421
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1687
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                 Lorenzo Tucker

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                         Submitted: November 17, 2023
                             Filed: March 4, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Lorenzo Tucker pled guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(j). The district court 1 sentenced him to a 120-month term of

      1
        The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.
imprisonment. Tucker appeals, claiming his sentence was both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

       On October 28, 2019, law enforcement responded to a report of shots fired in
a residential neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri. Upon arrival, the officers heard
additional shots from the rear of 7437 Lynn Avenue and observed Tucker walking
towards the back of the house. Officers canvassed the area and located two shell
casings on the west side of the residence. They then obtained a search warrant for
the residence and discovered six firearms, one of which was stolen, and 170 rounds
of ammunition. Tucker’s hands tested positive for gunshot residue.

       Tucker, charged with being a felon in possession of one or more firearms,
reached an agreement with the government to plead guilty to possession of a stolen
firearm. At sentencing, the district court determined Tucker’s advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range was 84 to 105 months, which was based on a total offense level of
25 and criminal history category IV. Tucker asked the district court to vary
downward, and the government requested an upward variance from the Sentencing
Guidelines. The district court, finding the existence of aggravating factors that
outweighed Tucker’s mitigating factors, imposed an imprisonment term of 120
months.

       Tucker asserts the district court committed procedural error by relying on
clearly erroneous facts. At sentencing Tucker only made a general objection to the
procedural fairness so we review for plain error. United States v. Floss, 42 F.4th
854, 864 (8th Cir. 2022). To satisfy plain error, Tucker must establish there was
error, it was plain, and the error affected his substantial rights. United States v.
Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009).

      Tucker first claims the district court erroneously found he engaged in violence
while committing felonies as a teenager. The unobjected to portions of the
Presentence Investigation Report indicate Tucker was involved in two robberies—

                                         -2-
one in March 1996 and one in April 1996—where a salesclerk was assaulted or
struck. More importantly, Tucker’s teenage robberies were not the principal basis
for the district court’s sentence, as the court focused more on his longstanding
incorrigibility while on supervision and in custody. Whether Tucker himself used
force in the April 1996 robbery is of little significance given the court’s explanation.

       Tucker also contests the district court’s finding that he had multiple
opportunities for rehabilitation. The record indicates Tucker participated in
cognitive restructuring programming, anger management classes, and substance
abuse classes, and he was referred for substance abuse treatment but declined to
participate. It also shows Tucker availed himself of mental health services while in
state custody. We find no error, plain or otherwise, in the district court’s finding
that Tucker had multiple opportunities for rehabilitation.

       Tucker’s claim that his sentence is substantively unreasonable is also
untenable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Sadler, 864 F.3d 902, 904 (8th Cir. 2017). A sentence
is substantively unreasonable if it “fails to consider a relevant [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]
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. Clark, 998
F.3d 363, 369 (8th Cir. 2021). When devising a sentence, a district court has wide
latitude to give some § 3553(a) factors more weight than others. United States v.
David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012).

       Tucker contends the district court failed to consider the negative impact of his
prior lengthy incarceration, which began in an adult prison when he was age 17, and
did not give any weight to his personal remarks because it only referred to them as
“powerful” after it rendered its sentence. The district court specifically stated that it
had read Tucker’s sentencing memorandum, which argued for a downward variance
based on his prior lengthy incarceration. We presume the district court considered

                                          -3-
and rejected Tucker’s argument. See United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 910, 922
(8th Cir. 2010). Similarly, the timing of the court’s recognition of Tucker’s
statement does not demonstrate it failed to consider his remarks, especially when the
court noted that Tucker needed to back his words up with action. The district court’s
weighing of the aggravating factors more heavily than Tucker’s show of remorse
does not constitute an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Carrillo, 982 F.3d
1134, 1137 (8th Cir. 2020).

      Tucker’s additional claim that the district court improperly relied on factors
already incorporated by the Sentencing Guidelines calculation is also unavailing.
We have explained that factors already considered in calculating a defendant’s
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range can form the basis for a variance. David, 682
F.3d at 1077. Importantly, the Sentencing Guidelines range did not account for the
dangerousness of Tucker’s underlying conduct, his recurrent violations while
incarcerated and on parole including this offense, and his recent arrests. Nor did the
Sentencing Guidelines calculation factor in Tucker’s plea agreement, which
dismissed the felon-in-possession charge and insulated Tucker from being
designated as an armed career criminal subject to a mandatory minimum sentence
of 15 years.

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
                      ______________________________

                                         -4-