Court Opinion

ID: 9370017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 17:00:25.422929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.714238
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-1448
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                 Ryan McDaniel

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

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

                         Submitted: December 15, 2022
                           Filed: February 10, 2023
                                ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

      Ryan McDaniel pleaded guilty to carjacking and brandishing-a-firearm
charges and received a 179-month sentence. He now argues that the district court1

      1
       The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, then United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, now Chief Judge.
committed procedural and substantive errors in determining his sentence. We
affirm.

                                          I.

       McDaniel carjacked at gunpoint a Domino’s delivery driver in St. Louis,
Missouri. Police officers apprehended McDaniel after an extended high-speed chase
that traversed multiple interstate highways and residential neighborhoods in St.
Louis City and County. At the time of his arrest, McDaniel was on parole for a
second-degree robbery conviction.

       McDaniel pleaded guilty to carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, and brandishing a
firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). While awaiting sentencing, McDaniel
committed multiple instances of violent conduct at the Jefferson County, Missouri
jail. He attempted to strike the jail nurse, twice charged at correctional officers, and
engaged in a scuffle that resulted in a sheriff’s deputy breaking an ankle. McDaniel
lost credit for acceptance of responsibility as a result of these and other incidents.
See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. McDaniel and the Government then jointly recommended a
53-month sentence for the carjacking charge to be served consecutively with the 84-
month statutory minimum sentence for brandishing, § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), for a total
sentence of 137 months.

       The district court declined to accept the parties’ recommended sentence. In
determining McDaniel’s sentence, the district court began by considering the
advisory sentencing guidelines, calculating a total offense level of 25 and a criminal-
history category of IV. Factoring in the 84-month statutory minimum, that yielded
a guidelines range of 168 to 189 months. The district court then weighed the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, discussing aggravating and mitigating factors.

       Towards the end of the § 3553(a) discussion, the district court made remarks
that are at the heart of McDaniel’s appeal. Referencing data available from the
United States Sentencing Commission’s Judiciary Sentencing Information (“JSIN”)

                                          -2-
tool, the district court said that twenty-nine offenders in the database who committed
a similar offense and had the same guidelines offense level and criminal-history
category as McDaniel received a median sentence of 180 months and a mean
sentence of 181 months. McDaniel’s counsel interjected and asked whether the
district court knew how many offenders in that dataset had received an 84-month
mandatory minimum sentence as part of their overall sentence.2 The district court
responded as follows:

      Yes. All of them. The data is on the 29 offenders whose primary
      guideline was 2B3.1 [the guideline applicable to robbery offenses] and
      who were convicted of at least one count of 18, United States Code,
      Section 924(c) with a final offense level of 25 and a criminal history
      category of four.

The district court then offered a brief rationale for considering the JSIN data:

      So it’s information I consider. It’s a data point. It’s not dispositive.
      Just like the guidelines, it is information that is—I do take into account
      and consider it as one of the factors in determining and fashioning a
      sentence. And in considering avoiding unwarranted sentencing
      disparities among defendants on a nationwide basis not on a local basis.
      That’s what the guidelines and the Supreme Court require.

The district court then formally denied what it referred to as “the joint
recommendation and joint motion for a downward variance” and sentenced
McDaniel to 179 months’ imprisonment.

      McDaniel appeals his sentence, alleging that the district court committed
procedural error and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

      2
       Under § 924(c), offenders may be subject to 60-month, 84-month, or 120-
month statutory minimums depending on whether a firearm is possessed,
brandished, or discharged during a crime of violence. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). Repeat
offenders are subject to a statutory minimum of 300 months. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i).

                                         -3-
                                         II.

       McDaniel first argues that the district court procedurally erred by referring to
the JSIN statistics. McDaniel claims that he had a right under Rule 32 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure to have notice of, and therefore time to review, all
material information relied on by the district court at sentencing. Moreover,
according to McDaniel, the district court erroneously interpreted the JSIN data. See
United States v. Wright, 799 F.2d 423, 426 (8th Cir. 1986) (“[S]entences based upon
material misinformation or erroneous assumptions violate due process.”); United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that a
district court procedurally errs by “selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts”).

                                          A.

       We begin by addressing McDaniel’s claim that the district court was obligated
to disclose its intent to rely on the JSIN statistics. On its face, the disclosure
requirement in Rule 32 only applies to the probation officer’s presentence
investigation report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e)(2). However, in United States v.
Lovelace, we stated that “a district court’s reliance at sentencing on material
information not disclosed in advance to a defendant violates the Rule 32 process.”
565 F.3d 1080, 1092 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding that a district court’s reliance on its
personal and undisclosed knowledge of victim impact violated Rule 32). According
to McDaniel, the district used the JSIN data in a material way when determining his
sentence and therefore should have disclosed it in advance of sentencing.

       McDaniel did not object to the district court’s failure to disclose in advance
of sentencing its intent to rely on the JSIN data. Nevertheless, McDaniel argues
that he preserved de novo review because he could not have had the opportunity to
formulate an objection to the JSIN data without knowing about its use in advance.
See Fed R. Crim. P. 51(b). Given these circumstances, McDaniel claims that we
should treat his counsel’s question about the JSIN dataset’s composition as

                                         -4-
informing the district court of his claim of error. We disagree. McDaniel’s counsel
need not have studied the JSIN data prior to the sentencing hearing to have realized
that the district court had not disclosed the JSIN data. We therefore review for plain
error. See Fed R. Crim. P. 52(b); Greer v. United States, 588 U.S. ---, 141 S.Ct.
2090, 2096 (2021).

       Even assuming that McDaniel could show the district court erred by not
disclosing its intent to rely on JSIN data, this error would not be plain. An error is
plain only if, at the time of appellate review, the erroneous nature of the trial court’s
decision is obvious. Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 273-74 (2013).
Lovelace and caselaw from other circuits establish that a district court cannot rely
on certain kinds of undisclosed information, especially private information about the
defendant’s crime and its impact on victims. See United States v. Hayes, 171 F.3d
389, 392 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that a district court’s reliance on confidential
victim-impact letters violates Rule 32). However, we have not held that the Lovelace
disclosure rule extends broadly to public information that is not specific to the
defendant. Indeed, we rejected a challenge to a district court’s use of undisclosed
general knowledge about a state’s prison system in United States v. Becker,
explaining that a district court’s personal knowledge of a defendant’s criminal
conduct and its impact on victims “differs substantially from general knowledge
about the prison system.” 636 F.3d 402, 406-07 (8th Cir. 2011). Therefore, it is not
plainly the case at the time of our review that the district court was obliged to
disclose in advance its intent to rely on publicly available JSIN data.

      Thus, the district court did not commit plain error by relying on the
undisclosed JSIN data. We therefore reject McDaniel’s argument that the district
court procedurally erred by failing to disclose the JSIN data in advance of
sentencing.

                                          -5-
                                          B.

       We next turn to McDaniel’s claim that the district court relied on an erroneous
interpretation of the JSIN data in determining its sentence. McDaniel argues that the
district court mistakenly understood the JSIN dataset as only containing offenders
with an offense carrying an 84-month minimum under § 924(c) as part of their
overall sentence. McDaniel’s briefing diligently reviews the underlying twenty-nine
cases in the JSIN dataset relied on by the district court. In only twenty of those cases
was the defendant subject to an 84-month § 924(c) minimum. For these twenty
defendants, the average sentence was 172 months and the median 168 months. In
the other cases, two of the other offenders had a 60-month statutory minimum, six
had a 120-month statutory minimum, and one had a 300-month statutory minimum.
The district court therefore did not understand the composition of the dataset,
according to McDaniel. McDaniel received a 179-month sentence, and the district
court stated that the JSIN median was 180 months. McDaniel thus argues that the
JSIN data shaped the district court’s sentencing determination and that he would
have received a lower sentence if the district court relied on a dataset exclusively
containing offenders with an 84-month § 924(c) minimum.

       The Government does not dispute McDaniel’s conclusion that offenders in the
dataset with an 84-month § 924(c) minimum received lower mean and median
sentences than the figures announced by the district court. Instead, the Government
argues that the district court understood the variance in § 924(c) statutory minimums
within the dataset but misunderstood McDaniel’s question about the dataset’s
composition. The Government emphasizes that after the district court answered
“yes” to McDaniel’s counsel’s question about the § 924(c) minimum, the district
court proceeded to explain that the offenders “were convicted of at least one count
of 18, United States Code, Section 924(c).” According to the Government, the
district court thereby indicated its awareness that the JSIN database included
offenders with statutory minimums of lengths other than 84 months.

                                          -6-
      We assume without deciding that the district court incorrectly interpreted the
JSIN data. However, we conclude that a remand for resentencing is unnecessary
because the district court’s alleged error did not prejudice McDaniel. A procedural
error is harmless when it “did not substantially influence the outcome of the
sentencing proceeding.” United States v. Woods, 670 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2012).
“A court’s determined focus on other matters when fixing a sentence can convince
us in the appropriate case that an error didn’t affect the court’s sentencing
conclusion.” United States v. Shell, 23 F.4th 803, 806 (8th Cir. 2022).

       In Shell, we found a district court’s invocation of allegedly errant statistics at
sentencing to be harmless. Id. at 805-06. The defendant in that case, a career
offender under § 924(c), also sought a below-guidelines sentence. The district court
said that it “looked at the United States Sentencing Commission data for career
offenders because [it] wasn’t just super familiar with sentencing statistics for 924(c)
career offenders.” Id. at 805. It interpreted that data as showing that a majority of
§ 924(c) career defenders nationwide do not receive below-guidelines variances. Id.
at 805. Assuming the Shell district court incorrectly interpreted the data, we
nevertheless declined to remand for resentencing because the sentencing transcript
showed that the court “focused extensively on other matters in selecting an
appropriate sentence.” Id. at 805-06. These other matters were “the nature and
seriousness of Shell’s offenses, his multiple, dangerous flights from law
enforcement, and especially his criminal history.” Id. at 806. Thus, viewing the
record in its totality, we found that “the court fixed Shell’s sentence by focusing in
a determined way on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of his case, not
on the sentences that other 924(c) career offenders received.” Id.

       A review of the sentencing transcript in this case demonstrates that the district
court similarly focused on McDaniel’s offense and other aggravating factors in
determining the sentence. Like the district court in Shell, the district court in this
case referenced the disputed data merely for comparative purposes as a “data point.”

                                          -7-
       Starting with McDaniel’s offenses, the district court described them as “very,
very disturbing,” emphasizing that during the carjacking McDaniel pointed his
firearm at the victim and threatened to shoot him. The district court also focused on
McDaniel’s high-speed attempt to evade police apprehension, noting that McDaniel
“imperiled many people on the interstates”; “went through residential
neighborhoods, disobey[ing] several traffic stops, traffic lights and stop signs while
creating a substantial risk to the public”; and was apprehended only after law
enforcement deployed spike strips at risk to their own safety.

       The district court then considered McDaniel’s criminal history, stating that
McDaniel “has a significant history that causes me grave concern” and discussing
McDaniel’s past offenses at length. The court noted a recidivist pattern by
comparing his present crime with his past crimes involving stealing, firearms, and
highly unsafe driving. The court also emphasized McDaniel’s post-arrest
misconduct, noting the deputy’s broken ankle, McDaniel’s attempt to strike a jail
nurse, and two other times when McDaniel charged at correctional officers. The
district court then reviewed applicable mitigating factors, such as family history,
substance abuse, and mental-health issues. The court, however, concluded that
McDaniel “made terrible choices despite all of the warnings and opportunities to
change his behavior” and “continues to pose serious and substantial threats to
society.”

       Only after this extended discussion of McDaniel’s crimes and aggravating
circumstances did the district court discuss the JSIN data. Shortly after that
exchange, the district court summarized its analysis by again focusing on defendant-
specific matters. The district court highlighted the aggravating circumstances and
emphasized that it grounded its decision in the § 3553(a) factors. It stated:

      I have arrived at a sentence that’s sufficient but not greater than
      necessary to comply with the purposes of 18, United States Code,
      Section 3553(a). And notwithstanding the objections in this case, I
      would impose the same sentence based on my consideration of the

                                         -8-
      3553(a) factors and all the facts and circumstances of this case as I have
      related them here today.

      I deny the joint -- what is essentially the joint recommendation and joint
      motion for a downward variance for all the reasons I have stated. It does
      not adequately reflect the nature and characteristics of the offense; the
      history and characteristics of the defendant; the seriousness of the
      danger created by the defendant’s offense here, including his extended
      high-speed fleeing and endangering other people; the pattern of
      escalating conduct; the victim impact which there is a trauma
      experienced by carjacking victims that I think is well-known.

      And I’ve considered the sentences of similarly-situated defendants and
      I’ve considered all of the arguments that have been presented here very
      ably by counsel today.

The district court then concluded by announcing that it had rejected the parties’ joint-
motion for a downward variance and by imposing a 179-month sentence.

       The district court’s explanation for selecting the 179-month sentence thus
“puts its statistical observation in the appropriate context.” See Shell, 23 F.4th at
806. The district court maintained a determined focus on the aggravating
circumstances in McDaniel’s case and imposed McDaniel’s sentence based on its
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Relatedly, the district court stated that the
sentencing data was “not dispositive,” or, in other words, not a deciding factor in its
sentencing determination. See United States v. Marin, 31 F.4th 1049, 1057 (8th Cir.
2022) (finding any error made by a district court in calculating the guidelines range
to be harmless because the district court extensively considered the § 3553(a) factors
and explained that the guidelines were “an important, though not in any way
controlling, factor to be considered.”).

      Moreover, the district court repeatedly referenced the applicable sentencing
guidelines range of 168 to 189 months, including when discussing national
consistency, and noted that the parties requested a downward variance of 31 to 52
months. The guidelines range thus provided the district court with an independent

                                          -9-
source of information, aside from the JSIN data, for its considerations of national
consistency. Cf. United States v. Wise, 17 F.4th 785, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2021)
(explaining that a district court’s erroneous statement at sentencing that heroin sold
by the defendant contained fentanyl was harmless because the court relied on other,
independent evidence which demonstrated that the defendant was aware of heroin’s
dangerous nature). Lastly, we note that the 179-month sentence McDaniel received
was also the approximate mid-point of the 168 to 189 month guidelines range. This
further rebuts McDaniel’s contention that the length of the sentence he received
demonstrates that he was prejudiced by the district court’s improper interpretation
of the JSIN data.

      In sum, we find that any error made by the district court in interpreting the
JSIN statistics “did not substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing
proceeding” because the district court focused on McDaniel, not the data. See
Woods, 670 F.3d at 886. If the district court erred in this case, its error was harmless.

                                          III.

       We next turn to McDaniel’s claim that the district court substantively erred
by imposing an unreasonable sentence. We review the substantive reasonableness
of a district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Godfrey, 863
F.3d 1088, 1099 (8th Cir. 2017). Sentences within the guidelines range are
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Jones, 990 F.3d 1141, 1144 (8th Cir.
2021).

       McDaniel argues that the district court substantively erred by excessively
relying on nationwide sentencing data and by giving insignificant weight to
mitigating factors. See § 3553(a). We disagree. As described above, the sentencing
transcript indicates that the district court only briefly considered the JSIN data in a
non-dispositive manner. Indeed, the district court primarily relied on factors specific
to McDaniel, most importantly the severity of his crimes and his extensive criminal

                                          -10-
history. Therefore, the record does not support McDaniel’s suggestion that the
district court excessively relied on the JSIN data in determining a sentence.

        McDaniel’s claim that the district court gave insignificant weight to
mitigating factors also lacks support. The district court discussed mitigating factors,
including mental health, family issues, and substance abuse. However, it concluded
that they should carry little weight because McDaniel had failed to take advantage
of multiple opportunities to turn his life around and remained a threat to society. In
sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving mitigating factors short
shrift; rather, it persuasively explained why aggravating factors should carry more
weight. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461-62 (explaining that we must give “due
deference” to a district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors).

      McDaniel’s 179-month, within-guidelines sentence reflects the district court’s
careful weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. As the district court did not fail to consider
or properly weigh any relevant factor or otherwise commit a clear error of judgment,
we conclude that McDaniel’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.

                                            IV.

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

STRAS, Circuit Judge, Dissenting.

       The district court said what it said during the sentencing hearing, and what it
said was wrong. In answering a question about a search it ran using the Judiciary
Sentencing Information tool, which aggregates data on offenders sentenced in the
federal system, it declared that all 29 offenders in the dataset had an 84-month
statutory-minimum sentence. That was mistaken. Some had 60-month minimum
sentences, several more had 120-month minimums, and one topped out at a 300-
month minimum.

                                          -11-
       The district court also stated that the data was “information [it]
consider[ed,] . . . a data point . . . [to] avoid[] unwarranted sentencing disparities.”
Having all but admitted that the search influenced its decision to impose a 179-
month sentence, I would remand for resentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)
(requiring district courts to consider “unwarranted sentenc[ing] disparities among
defendants”). In the language of the plain-error standard, it made a “clear” or
“obvious” error that, by the court’s own words, affected McDaniel’s substantial
rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993); cf. United States v. Shell,
23 F.4th 803, 807 (8th Cir. 2022) (Stras, J., concurring in the judgment) (agreeing
that the sentence should stand on plain-error review because no one could identify
“the source, time frame, or dataset used” at sentencing).
                         ______________________________

                                         -12-