United States v. Dshaun Butler, 743 F.3d 645

Butler pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm on February 8, 2012.
Probation calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 46–57 months (level 17, category V).
Butler objected to a state conviction that had been vacated; district court overruled and sentenced 57 months.
On remand, after dismissal of the contested conviction, Guidelines range was recalculated to 37–46 months (level 17, category IV).
District court varied upward and again imposed 57 months based on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Butler challenged the sentencing procedure; this appeal concerns the adequacy of the district court’s explanation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of explanation for remand sentence	Butler contends explanation for upward variance was inadequate	United States argues the district court adequately explained the reasoning	No error; explanation adequate and sentence affirmed
Plain-error review of remand decision	Butler argues plain error due to lack of objection	United States contends no plain error	No plain error; sentence sustained on appeal

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (requirements for explaining sentencing decisions; appellate review of explanation)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (need for reasoned explanation of sentence under 3553(a))
United States v. Moore, 565 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 2009) (limits on necessary explanation in sentencing)
United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review framework in sentencing appeals)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (standard for applying plain error review)