United States v. Dominic Rickett
690 F. App'x 447
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 Dominic A. Rickett pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- He was initially sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal to the 180-month mandatory minimum; after Johnson (2015) the district court granted relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
- At resentencing the advisory Guidelines range was 57–71 months; Rickett asked for release based on ~60 months already served.
- The Government sought a sentence at the top of the Guidelines; the district court imposed 120 months (the statutory maximum) but credited Rickett for time served.
- Rickett challenged the sentence on procedural grounds (insufficient explanation and inadequate consideration of § 3553(a) and post-offense rehabilitation) and implicitly on substantive reasonableness.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed for plain error on procedural claims and for abuse of discretion on substantive reasonableness and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rickett) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of explanation | District court failed to adequately explain upward variance and weigh § 3553(a) factors and his rehabilitation | Court provided sufficient consideration; district court discretion to weigh factors | No plain error shown; defendant did not show reasonable probability of lighter sentence absent any error |
| Failure to object at sentencing / standard of review | Objections not raised; argues error nonetheless | Forfeiture applies; review limited to plain error standard | Reviewed for plain error; defendant failed to satisfy plain-error prerequisites |
| Substantive reasonableness of 120-month sentence | Sentence is greater than Guidelines and thus unreasonable because Guidelines already accounted for history | District court reasonably found Guidelines inadequate given concentrated criminal conduct; variance justified | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
| Consideration of post-offense rehabilitation | Argues significant rehabilitation warranted lower sentence | District court weighed § 3553(a) factors and permissibly assigned weight among them | Court found district court acted within discretion in weighing rehabilitation against criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural error includes failure to explain a sentence or consider § 3553(a) factors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must consider § 3553(a) factors and explain variances; appellate deference to district court’s judgment)
- United States v. Cole, 721 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2013) (adequacy of explanation treated as procedural issue)
- United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2016) (plain-error standard applies when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (four-part plain-error test for forfeited errors)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (caused collateral relief from ACCA sentencing enhancement)
- United States v. Stokes, 750 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2014) (an error affects substantial rights only if it likely produced a lighter sentence)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts may assign greater weight to certain § 3553(a) factors)
- Shelton v. Mapes, 821 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2016) (generally do not consider pro se briefs when party is represented by counsel)