United States v. Aaron Webster, 820 F.3d 944

Defendant Aaron Webster convicted of possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun; original sentence was 120 months.
This case reached the Eighth Circuit, which remanded for resentencing because the district court relied on certain disputed/unproven facts at the first sentencing. See United States v. Webster, 788 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2015).
At resentencing the district court again imposed the statutory maximum 120-month term, varying upward from the Guidelines range of 70–87 months.
Defense counsel moved to withdraw under Anders; Webster filed a pro se brief challenging a four-level §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
The panel majority affirmed the amended judgment: (1) found no plain error in the unobjected-to Guidelines enhancement because the PSR contained supporting facts; (2) found the upward variance substantively reasonable given the firearm discharge into a fleeing vehicle and other §3553(a) considerations; and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
Judge Bright dissented, arguing the district court failed to explain why the same 120‑month sentence was appropriate after the remand (given removal of the improper facts), and that the 120‑month sentence may be substantively unreasonable given Webster’s age, limited record, and rehabilitative efforts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether four-level §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement plain-error review fails	Webster (plaintiff) argued enhancement improper because tied to another felony not proven at trial	Government argued PSR contained unobjected facts supporting enhancement	Affirmed: no plain error; PSR supported enhancement
Whether 120‑month sentence substantively unreasonable	Webster argued sentence excessive given Guidelines (70–87 mo.), youth, limited record, rehab	Government argued district court properly weighed §3553(a) and dangerousness (discharge at fleeing vehicle) justified upward variance	Affirmed: deferential review; sentence not an "unusual" unreasonable case
Whether district court complied with remand mandate and adequately explained reimposed sentence	Webster (dissent) argued court failed to address removal of prior improper facts and did not provide new adequate explanation	Government contended court considered arguments and provided sufficient reasons for variance	Majority: explanation adequate; Dissent: would vacate for inadequate explanation
Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders	Counsel asserted appeal frivolous	N/A	Granted: Penson/Anders review found no nonfrivolous issues

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural standard for appointed counsel withdrawal on frivolous appeal)
United States v. Webster, 788 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2015) (prior remand for resentencing because district court relied on unproven facts)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review when no timely objection)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standards for substantive-reasonableness review and requirement to explain sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review and need for specific sentencing explanations)
United States v. Kane, 639 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2011) (appellate correction of unreasonable weighing decisions)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (procedural review on counsel-withdrawal appeals)
United States v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirmance of same sentence on remand where court provided adequate explanation)
United States v. Feemster, 435 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2006) (need for adequate sentencing explanation on remand)
United States v. Dautovic, 763 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2014) (narrow deferential review but correction of unreasonable variances)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (appellate review of federal sentences for reasonableness)