Court Opinion

ID: 9895239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 16:01:38.385485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:45.580168
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3631
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                                  Walter Davis

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                         Submitted: September 18, 2023
                           Filed: November 6, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In December 2022, the district court 1 sentenced Walter Davis to 240 months
of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, after he pled guilty
to attempted distribution of a controlled substance analogue, possession of a

      1
        The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
controlled substance with intent to distribute, and two counts of unlawful possession
of a gun as a felon. Davis argues on appeal that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.

       Our review of the sentence is for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Funke, 846 F.3d 998, 1000 (8th Cir. 2017). “A district court abuses its discretion
and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and
significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or
considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing
those factors.” United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008). In
reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we typically give “great deference to the
district court.” United States v. Jones, 701 F.3d 327, 330 (8th Cir. 2012).

       Contrary to Davis’s argument, the district court properly considered and
weighed his mitigating factors when it imposed a below-range sentence.2 The
district court recognized Davis “witnessed violence as a child,” was “impacted by
gang activity,” and “directly experienced violence,” including gunshot wounds. The
district court also acknowledged the “many” letters of support it received on Davis’s
behalf, describing Davis as “caring and thoughtful” and “a person who goes out of
his way to help others.” The district court weighed these facts against the
circumstances of this case: (1) Davis knew “firsthand” the addictive nature of the
drugs he distributed; (2) Davis heightened the severity of his offense by possessing
firearms; and (3) Davis’s “four convictions in this case” brought his total number of
felonies to fourteen. The district court concluded that “a significant punishment is

      2
       Davis also argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable because he
had no “bad, evil, or predatory motive in committing the crimes.” Davis claims he
lacked ill intent because he was motivated “solely for financial benefit and to have
money for him and his family.” Davis fails to explain how his desire to obtain money
by selling drugs distinguishes him from other drug traffickers. Instead, what
distinguishes Davis from other criminals is the fact that he targeted prisoners as
buyers, which is far from exculpatory.
                                        -2-
warranted to promote respect for the law, to deter [Davis] from committing crimes
in the future, and importantly, to protect the public.”

       We have repeatedly emphasized that a “district court’s ‘choice to assign
relatively greater weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense than to the
mitigating personal characteristics of the defendant is well within the wide latitude
given to individual district court judges in weighing relevant factors.’” United States
v. Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up) (quoting United States
v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 774 (8th Cir. 2011)). See also, e.g., United States v.
Dunn, 928 F.3d 688, 694 (8th Cir. 2019). “After all, ‘the sentencing judge is in the
best position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual
case.’” Wilcox, 666 F.3d at 1157–58 (cleaned up) (quoting United States v.
Anderson, 618 F.3d 873, 883 (8th Cir. 2010)).

      We affirm.
                       ______________________________

                                         -3-