United States v. Dominic Donahue, 959 F.3d 864

Defendant Dominic Terrell Donahue pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
The Sentencing Guidelines range was 46–57 months; the district court imposed an upward variance to 68 months.
Donahue appealed, arguing the upward variance double-counted factors already reflected in the Guidelines and failed to account for his youth at the time of prior offenses, substance-abuse issues, and lack of prior long prison terms.
The Presentence Investigation Report documented repeated misconduct: lying to and fleeing from police, assaulting an officer resisting arrest, committing offenses while on probation, and committing the instant offense while on probation.
The district court acknowledged mitigating factors (age, substance abuse) and recommended substance-abuse treatment, but emphasized Donahue’s persistent disrespect for the law and need for deterrence and respect for the law as reasons to increase the sentence.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the 68-month sentence.

Issue	Donahue's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Whether the 68‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable	The upward variance improperly double-counted factors already reflected in the Guidelines and produced a sentence greater than necessary	The court permissibly gave greater weight to recidivism and disrespect for law based on facts not fully accounted for by the Guidelines	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion
Whether the district court impermissibly relied on factors already in the Guidelines	The variance overemphasized conduct/history baked into the Guidelines	A court may conclude the Guidelines underweight a factor and vary upward if justified	Held for government — court may assign greater weight to a factor than Guidelines did
Whether the court failed to consider Donahue’s age	Donahue: his younger age during prior offenses should mitigate	Court considered age but found it not extraordinary (he was ≥21) and not mitigating here	Held for government — age considered, not mitigating
Whether the court failed to consider substance abuse and lack of prior long sentences	Donahue: substance abuse and no long prior incarceration argue for leniency	Court acknowledged substance abuse and recommended treatment; nevertheless deterrence and respect for law justified variance	Held for government — mitigating factors considered; variance reasonable

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for abuse of discretion review of substantive reasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (courts consider totality and extent of any variance from Guidelines)
United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2016) (substantial variances based on factors already in Guidelines can undermine uniformity)
United States v. Solis-Bermudez, 501 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2007) (caution against double-counting Guideline factors)
United States v. Thorne, 896 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2018) (district courts may determine Guidelines underweight a factor and vary accordingly)
United States v. Wilder, 597 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2010) (defendant’s age ordinarily does not mitigate against longer sentences)
United States v. Holdsworth, 830 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2016) (district courts have wide discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (reversal for substantive unreasonableness is unusual)