United States v. Christopher Schultz, 20-2419

Defendant Christopher Schultz pleaded guilty to three counts of armed bank robbery and two counts of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d)) after robbing multiple banks over ~4 months.
At sentencing Schultz was 42 with a 21-year criminal history; the PSR gave him Criminal-History Category IV and total offense level 26.
The advisory Guidelines range was 92–115 months’ imprisonment; the district court (Judge John A. Jarvey) varied upward and imposed 135 months on each count, concurrent.
Schultz appealed, arguing the 135-month sentence was substantively unreasonable for three reasons: the upward variance relied on factors already reflected in the Guidelines; the court failed to consider his drug addiction and mental-health issues; and the court misweighed mitigating factors.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion under the deferential standard for substantive reasonableness and affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an upward variance is substantively unreasonable because based on factors already in the Guidelines	Schultz: variance relied on seriousness of offenses, victim fear, criminal history, and deterrence—factors already considered in Guidelines	Government/District Ct: those § 3553(a) factors may properly support a variance	Affirmed: district court may rely on factors already considered in Guidelines to justify a variance (no abuse of discretion)
Whether the district court failed to consider Schultz’s drug addiction and mental-health history	Schultz: court did not give adequate consideration to these mitigating factors	Government/District Ct: court reviewed the PSR and Schultz raised addiction at sentencing; we should presume court considered them	Affirmed: court reasonably considered those factors (PSR reviewed and defendant raised them)
Whether the district court abused its discretion by misweighing mitigating vs. aggravating factors	Schultz: mitigating factors warranted a lower sentence	Government/District Ct: district court legitimately balanced factors and exercised discretion	Affirmed: no clear error in the court’s balancing; not an abuse of discretion

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2012) (factors already considered in Guidelines can support a variance)
United States v. Keating, 579 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2009) (court presumed to consider factors brought to its attention)
United States v. Diaz-Pellegaud, 666 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2012) (no requirement to recite every factor the court considered)
United States v. Delao-Navarrete, [citation="365 F. App'x 731"] (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (review of PSR indicates consideration of facts contained therein)
United States v. Ruiz-Salazar, 785 F.3d 1270 (8th Cir. 2015) (court’s broad discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors)