United States v. Eason
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13777
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Eason pleaded guilty to four counts of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- Plea Agreement included a limited appeal waiver.
- District court labeled Eason a career offender based on two prior burglary convictions and sentenced him to 151 months, at the bottom of the advisory range.
- Eason appeals asserting (a) improper career-offender designation, and (b) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence; government argues waiver forecloses appeal on some points.
- Court addresses (1) the career-offender calculation, (2) whether the waiver bars the sentencing challenges, and (3) the substantiveness of the sentence, ultimately affirming the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Career-offender status based on 1997 burglary? | Eason lacks two qualifying convictions. | Two prior burglary convictions qualify as crimes of violence. | Yes; 1997 Tennessee burglary qualifies as a crime of violence; career-offender enhancement applied. |
| Appeal waiver scope and ability to challenge sentence | Appeal waiver covers only certain aspects; Eason may challenge the sentence. | Waiver forecloses most sentencing challenges. | Waiver does not bar Eason from challenging the sentence in this context; the court reviews within-range reasonableness. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 151-month sentence | Sentence is greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). | Bottom-of-range sentence is presumptively reasonable given the offenses and history. | Sentence within the properly calculated range is not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990) (generic burglary defines crime of violence for § 4B1.2(a)(2))
- Stymiest v. United States, 581 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2009) (Court holds Tennessee burglary generally qualifies as a violent felony)
- United States v. Bell, 445 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2006) (Tennessee burglary decisions aligned with generic burglary concept)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (within-guidelines sentencing presumptively reasonable on appeal)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (reasonable sentences reviewed for procedural/ substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; within-range sentences generally not reversed)