Court Opinion

ID: 9896516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 16:01:32.474794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:06.858790
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1139
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                             Lamonte Dior Dickens

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: October 16, 2023
                           Filed: November 13, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      The district court 1 sentenced Lamonte Dickens to 46 months in prison after
he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

      1
        The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
       We conclude otherwise. See United States v. Harris, 960 F.3d 1103, 1106
(8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Callaway,
762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within-Guidelines sentence is
presumed reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently
considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on
an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In doing so, the court
specifically discussed several mitigating factors, but ultimately placed greater
weight on Dickens’s criminal history and resistance to rehabilitation. There was no
abuse of discretion, see United States v. Keating, 579 F.3d 891, 893–94 (8th Cir.
2009), so we affirm the judgment of the district court.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-