United States v. Dylan Stone
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20223
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Dylan W. Stone pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Presentence report (PSR) calculations were uncontested, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 27–33 months.
- The district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 60 months, citing factors including Stone’s criminal history, employment history, lack of success on supervision, need to protect the public, and deterrence.
- Stone appealed, arguing the upward variance was erroneous because the court considered improper categorical rules and unreasonably weighed the § 3553(a) factors.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (noting both procedural and substantive standards were implicated but not resolving which applied) and affirmed the district court’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court considered improper categorical rules (leading to procedural error) | Stone: Court applied categorical rules favoring longer federal sentences and longer sentences for recidivism | Government: Court made individualized findings about Stone’s history and deterrence needs | Court: No improper categorical rules; statements taken in context showed individualized consideration; factor of deterrence is permissible |
| Whether the upward variance was an unreasonable weighing of § 3553(a) factors (substantive reasonableness) | Stone: Court gave excessive weight to criminal history and deterrence, producing an unjustified, excessive sentence | Government: District court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and explained its reasons; deference owed to sentencing court | Court: Sentence was reasonable; district court explicitly addressed relevant § 3553(a) factors and justified the variance |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (deferential abuse-of-discretion review of sentences)
- United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984 (need to consider extent of deviation and justification for variance)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (standards for sentencing variances)
- United States v. Hummingbird, 743 F.3d 636 (no requirement of "extraordinary circumstances" to justify variance)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (district court’s wide latitude in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Kouangvan, 844 F.3d 996 (discussion of procedural vs. substantive sentencing challenges)
- United States v. O’Connor, 567 F.3d 395 (same)