Court Opinion

ID: 9395657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:00:54.955774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:10.403473
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-1231
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                   Eric Neville

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: February 13, 2023
                             Filed: May 18, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Eric Neville pleaded guilty to four drug and gun-related charges, 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 846; 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (c)(1)(A). His
Guidelines range was 181 to 211 months in prison, and the district court 1 sentenced

      1
        The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
him to 211 months. Neville appeals the substantive reasonableness of his sentence,
and we affirm.

     We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion and
may presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

      When sentencing defendants, district courts should consider all of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. Neville argues that the district court relied on only one
factor—the “seriousness of the offense.” But the record says otherwise. See
Sentencing Tr. 33 (“In crafting this sentence, I have considered all factors outlined
under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a), including general deterrence, specific deterrence,
protection of the public, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and
the specific history and characteristics of the defendant.”).

       Neville’s other arguments are a challenge to the court’s “wide latitude” to
weigh the sentencing factors. United States v. Isler, 983 F.3d 335, 344 (8th Cir.
2020). He argues that the district court gave too much weight to the seriousness of
his crime because the gun involved was inoperable. He also argues that the court
should have given more weight to his drug addiction and his time at an allegedly
dangerous prison. Although “the district court may give some factors less weight
than a defendant prefers or more weight to the other factors, . . . that alone does not
justify reversal.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, Neville has not overcome the presumption
that his sentence was reasonable.

      For the reasons stated above, we affirm Neville’s sentence.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-