Court Opinion

ID: 9894612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 15:01:20.103854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:05.363955
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1386
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

      Antaveon Bernard Kent, also known as Anaveon Bernard Le’Vell Kent

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

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

                            Submitted: October 16, 2023
                             Filed: November 2, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Antaveon Kent and a coconspirator shot and killed two people while
attempting to steal their marijuana so they could sell it themselves. Kent pleaded
guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; attempting to possess with intent to distribute marijuana,
id. § 841(a)(1); and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime
resulting in death, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (j). His Guidelines range was 480 months to
life in prison. The district court 1 varied down and imposed a sentence of 312
months—48 months higher than the parties’ joint recommendation. Kent appeals,
arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court did not
give enough weight to his mitigating circumstances.

       We review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.2
United States v. Levy, 18 F.4th 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses
its discretion when it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors.” Id. (citation
omitted). Where, as here, the court imposes a below-Guidelines sentence, we
presume that the sentence is reasonable. United States v. Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106,
1116 (8th Cir. 2020). It is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion
by not varying below the Guidelines further. Id. (citation omitted).

       Kent argues that the district court should have given more weight to his
mitigating circumstances. The court said that it considered the circumstances Kent
mentioned at sentencing and in his filings—his troubled childhood, mental health,
and lack of a male role model. And it agreed that those circumstances called for a
“significant downward variance.” But it concluded that the parties’ recommendation
of 264 months in prison was not sufficient because of Kent’s “abhorrent” conduct
and the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public and deter him from
committing crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A)–(C). The court’s decision
to “assign relatively greater weight” to those factors than Kent preferred was well

      1
         The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
       2
         The Government asks us to review for plain error because Kent did not object
below to how the district court weighed his mitigating circumstances. But he did
not need to raise that objection to preserve his challenge. United States v. Jones, 71
F.4th 1083, 1086 (8th Cir. 2023) (first citing Holguin-Hernandez v. United States,
140 S. Ct. 762 (2020); and then citing United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916
(8th Cir. 2009)).
                                          -2-
within its discretion. See United States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 774–75 (8th
Cir. 2011).

      We affirm the district court’s judgment.
                      ______________________________

                                       -3-