United States v. Bobby R. Olson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11493
8th Cir.2013Background
- Bobby Olson pled guilty to larceny under 18 U.S.C. §§ 661, 1152 after stealing a car from a casino parking lot.
- PSR showed extensive criminal history: 11 adult convictions, six other arrests, nine charges pending; guideline range was 12–18 months in Criminal History VI, offense level 6.
- The district court upwardly departed due to Olson’s “terrible record,” moving to offense level 12 and a 30–37 month range, concluding a higher sentence was warranted.
- Olson did not formally object to the departure; he urged leniency and a downward departure.
- On appeal, Olson challenged the procedural basis for the upward departure and the court’s consideration of factors; we affirm the district court’s sentence.
- The reviewing court first considers procedural errors, then substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the upward departure properly justified and applied? | Olson argues improper reasoning/guide for departure. | Olson contends misapplication of §4A1.3 vs §5K2.0. | Yes; court properly used §4A1.3 and the departure was valid. |
| Did the court’s reliance on §5K2.0 overcome by the oral §4A1.3 reasoning control? | Court-writing checked §5K2.0 box but relied on §4A1.3 rationale. | Oral sentence controls; intent shown as §4A1.3. | Oral sentence shows §4A1.3 intent, so the departure stands. |
| Did the district court properly consider the §3553(a) factors? | Court allegedly failed to consider all factors. | Court acknowledged §3553(a) factors and circumstances. | Yes; court adequately considered §3553(a). |
| Is 30-month sentence substantively reasonable given Olson’s history? | Sentence overly harsh given upbringing and family. | Severe criminal history justifies upward departure. | No abuse of discretion; term reasonable given history and case facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural/abuse review of sentencing; en banc)
- United States v. King, 627 F.3d 321 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward departures; abuse of discretion standard)
- United States v. Buck, 661 F.3d 364 (8th Cir. 2011) (oral sentence governs when conflicting with written judgment)
- United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2008) (district judges presumed to know the law; clear rules in sentencing)
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (consideration of §3553(a) factors need not be itemized)