Court Opinion

ID: 9389318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 16:00:58.891488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.646656
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-1653
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                 Lawrence Cannon

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: January 9, 2023
                              Filed: April 25, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
                             ____________

PER CURIAM.

      On May 10, 2019, Lawrence Cannon and his cousin went to a nightclub in
Jonesboro, Arkansas. In the early morning hours of May 11, an “extremely
intoxicated” Cannon left the club and retrieved a handgun with an extended magazine
from his vehicle. Security staff saw the gun and stopped Cannon from reentering the
crowded club. He stated, “I have to protect my people.” When an off-duty police
officer saw the gun and arrested Cannon, he said “I’m a felon. I have got a gun. I
was trying to protect my people.” Charged with being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), Cannon pleaded guilty on the eve of trial.

      The Presentence Investigation Report, to which neither party objected,
determined that Cannon’s base offense level is twenty-two, his total offense level is
twenty based on a two-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, and his
Criminal History Category is VI, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range
of 70-87 months imprisonment. In a Sentencing Memorandum, Cannon argued for
a downward variance, in part because his offense behavior “arose solely from his
desire to defend his cousin from harm.” His intent was not “to argue justification”
but to “explain in mitigation” that his actions arose from “a pure and lawful
motivation.” Early in the lengthy sentencing hearing, government counsel argued:

      Your Honor, it is the United States’s position that the Defendant has not
      . . . fully accepted responsibility for this offense.

             The Defendant pled on the day of trial, on the morning of trial.
      And furthermore, in a sentencing memorandum filed yesterday at 5:15,
      the Defendant seems to attempt to mitigate or even equivocate some of
      the offense conducted, insofar as he is asking for leniencies, because the
      conduct was, in a way justified.

The district court1 noted that neither pleading guilty the day before trial nor arguing
for a lesser sentence based on mitigating circumstances is inconsistent with an
acceptance of responsibility adjustment. The court overruled the government’s
objection, allowed Cannon a two-level adjustment, and determined that the advisory
guidelines range is 70-87 months.

      1
       The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

                                         -2-
       Cannon requested a downward variance, arguing as mitigating factors his belief
that his offense conduct was justified by a concern for his cousin’s safety in the
nightclub, his intoxication and history of substance abuse, and his cooperation with
police when arrested. The government requested an upward variance to 100 months
imprisonment, citing the seriousness of the offense, Cannon’s noncompliant pretrial
record, drug use during probation, criminal history, and because “the United States
believes that there hasn’t been true remorse here, and there hasn’t been a full
admittance of guilt.”

       After hearing argument, the district court denied Cannon’s request for a
downward variance, and granted the government’s request for an upward variance but
not to the extent or for the reasons the government urged. The court explained that
the offense conduct -- while inebriated, to “get a gun and try to bring it into a location
with hundreds of people with the idea that you are going to either use it or scare
people with it” -- “is among the most dangerous offense conduct there can be for a
felon in possession.” Cannon’s criminal history suggested a “significant disrespect
for the law” that was “getting worse, not better.” Cannon did not present evidence
supporting his mitigation argument, but in any event “certainly if you’re a felon, but
quite frankly if you are anybody, you cannot do what Mr. Cannon did.” The court
concluded that Cannon’s mitigating circumstances were outweighed by his offense
conduct and serious criminal history. The court said it “totally ignored” the way the
government came to its 100-month request:

      I didn’t think the two-[level] issue was something that I should
      concentrate on at all. What really affected me here was general
      deterrence and protection of the public, and the seriousness of the
      offense.

The court sentenced Cannon to 96 months imprisonment.

                                           -3-
       Cannon raises a single issue on appeal: “The sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the District Court granted the government’s motion to vary
premised on a subjective belief unsupported by any eviden[ce],” namely, that
“Cannon’s mitigation argument demonstrated a lack of remorse for his crime.” This
clearly erroneous finding “conflated mitigation with justification.” Cannon did not
raise this claim of procedural error at sentencing, so our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942, 946 (8th Cir. 2008). But in any event, the
contention is without merit because it misstates the sentencing record.

      The district court granted the government’s request for an upward variance but
not for the reasons the government urged. The court made no reference to lack of
remorse. The court expressly stated that it did not consider “the two-[level] issue,”
explaining at length its own reasons for imposing an upward variance to 96 months,
reasons firmly grounded in the offense conduct, Cannon’s criminal history and
characteristics, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The court did not
“conflate[] mitigation with justification,” whatever that means. There was no
procedural error, much less plain error.

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                          -4-