United States v. Dennis Sharkey, II
895 F.3d 1077
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Dennis Sharkey and Jacob Burton pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine after law enforcement uncovered a distribution network in northern Iowa tied to a primary distributor, Michael Bent.
- Wiretap evidence identified Sharkey and Burton as lower-level distributors who introduced customers and sold methamphetamine on multiple occasions.
- PSRs assigned both defendants total offense level 29; Sharkey had criminal-history category V (guideline range 140–175 months) and Burton had category IV (guideline range 151–188 months).
- The district court sentenced Sharkey to 140 months (bottom of guideline range) and Burton to 154 months (within range).
- Both appealed, claiming their sentences were substantively unreasonable; Burton also alleged procedural error in denying a two-level minor-role reduction and challenged other aspects of sentencing consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of Sharkey's within-guidelines 140-month sentence | N/A (government sought affirmance) | Sharkey contends the court improperly relied on his introduction of "customers," who were an informant and undercover officer, to aggravate role | Affirmed — within-guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; court may consider informant/undercover introductions and Sharkey believed they were genuine customers |
| Denial of Burton's two-level mitigating-role (USSG §3B1.2(b)) | N/A | Burton argued he was a minor participant (brief involvement; primarily a courier) | Affirmed — denial not clear error; Burton distributed ~113 grams over five months and courts reject minor-role claims merely because a larger upstream distributor exists |
| Whether court improperly weighed Burton's prior burglary convictions post-Mathis | N/A | Burton argued Mathis means Iowa burglary is not a crime of violence and court erred to treat burglaries as especially egregious | Affirmed — Mathis addressed ACCA predicates and is inapposite; sentencing courts must consider criminal history under §3553(a) and may assess burglary seriousness |
| Whether district court abused discretion by declining downward variance for policy disagreement and health/addiction | N/A | Burton sought a variance based on disagreement with methamphetamine guideline policy and his health/drug addiction | Affirmed — court considered and rejected the policy argument and reasonably weighed mitigating personal factors against aggravating factors like criminal history and witness exposure |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review framework; procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (en banc) (substantive-review deference to district courts)
- United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d 1167 (factors for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. Battiest, 553 F.3d 1132 (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences and consideration of policy disagreements)
- United States v. Hunt, 840 F.3d 554 (per curiam) (minor-role factual question reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Bradley, 643 F.3d 1121 (burden on defendant to prove minor role by comparison)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (interpreting state burglary definitions for ACCA predicate offense analysis)
- United States v. LeGrand, 468 F.3d 1077 (upholding conviction/sentence where transactions involved an undercover officer)