Court Opinion

ID: 9895492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 16:01:33.54277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:53.069578
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3556
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                           Lamark Armond Combs, Jr.

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                         Submitted: September 22, 2023
                           Filed: November 7, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Lamark Combs pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B), (b). After we sent the case back for
resentencing, the district court 1 reopened the record and gave him a 183-month

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
sentence. Although Combs disagrees with the court’s approach on remand, we
affirm.

                                          I.

       An unresolved factual dispute from the presentence investigation report
required us to vacate Combs’s sentence in the first appeal. See United States v.
Combs, 44 F.4th 815, 817 (8th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). The dispute was about
whether he had received sexually explicit images from two minor victims. See id.
We “le[ft] it up to the district court to determine whether to reopen the record for
additional evidence on remand.” Id. at 819.

       The district court made the discretionary call to consider additional evidence,
including from a detective who testified that Combs requested images from both
girls. The new evidence resolved the outstanding factual dispute. And after the
court heard argument, it sentenced Combs to 183 months in prison, a downward
variance of 52 months from the recommended range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)–(b).

                                         II.

      Combs’s procedural challenge is to the district court’s decision to reopen the
record and allow the government to present additional evidence. Our review is for
an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Eason, 907 F.3d 554, 558 (8th Cir.
2018).

       The first time around, we made clear that the district court had discretion to
reopen the record if it wished. See Combs, 44 F.4th at 819. The initial sentencing,
after all, was “confusing”: Combs did not renew his objection, no one focused on it
at the hearing, and it was unclear at the time whether it was factual or legal. United
States v. Sorrells, 432 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 2005); see Combs, 44 F.4th at 819.
Given that the court did exactly as we suggested on remand, there was no abuse of
discretion. See Eason, 907 F.3d at 557–58 (holding that a district court may reopen
                                         -2-
the record on remand unless directed otherwise); cf. United States v. Arias, 74 F.4th
544, 550 (8th Cir. 2023) (“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, our role in this appeal
does not encompass review or re-examination of an issue decided in a prior
appeal.”).

                                         III.

       Nor is Combs’s 183-month sentence substantively unreasonable. See United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the
substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion). 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. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th
Cir. 2006). In its view, Combs’s requests for child pornography, some of it “hard
core,” presented a serious “danger[] to the community,” despite the presence of
several mitigating factors. It was within the district court’s discretion to weigh some
factors more heavily than others. See United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379
(8th Cir. 2009).

                                         IV.

      We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
                     ______________________________

                                         -3-