United States v. Gant
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25244
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Gant pleaded guilty to willfully threatening to kill and to damage a building by fire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e); sentencing included a 120-month term consecutive to an undischarged Iowa state term.
- PSR calculated guidelines at 13 with criminal history Category VI; range 33–41 months, but statute allowed up to 120 months and consecutive sentencing contemplated.
- United States sought upward departure/variance under § 4A1.3 and § 5K2.21, submitting thirteen sentencing exhibits detailing various fires and related conduct.
- Exhibits 6, 9, 10, 11 were uncontested; others described fires allegedly linked to Gant but contested for reliability; district court received them for relevance.
- District court departed upward under § 4A1.3 and § 5K2.21 or, alternatively, varianced upward, imposing the statutory maximum 120 months and three years’ supervised release.
- Gant challenged the use of contested exhibits as unreliable proof for § 4A1.3, and argued for leniency due to alcoholism and depression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly used contested exhibits for § 4A1.3. | Gant argues exhibits do not prove responsibility for fires; unreliable for 4A1.3. | United States contends exhibits support under 4A1.3 as to unscored history/recidivism. | Harmless error; proper total record supports upward departure under 4A1.3. |
| Whether the 120-month sentence is procedurally sound under § 3553(a). | Gant asserts procedural error affected sentence. | USA contends sentence justified by factors and totality of record. | Sentence affirmed; procedural error found harmless; substantively reasonable. |
| Whether the district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors in imposing an upward variance. | Gant argues factors were misweighed, particularly personal mitigators. | USA asserts court properly considered public safety and recidivism concerns. | District court did not abuse discretion; weighed factors within range of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (deference to district court’s weighing of 3553(a) factors; reasonableness standard)
- Hayes, 518 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing review)
- Bennett, 659 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Guidelines application; clear-error standard for facts)
- Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; framework for procedural vs. substantive review in sentencing)
- Ortiz, 636 F.3d 389 (8th Cir. 2011) (harmless error when district court would have imposed same sentence)
- Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2009) (consideration of criminal history and incorrigibility in § 4A1.3 departures)
- Left Hand Bull, 477 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2006) (record supports § 4A1.3 upward departure without certain arrest records)
- Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2011) (weight given to defendant’s personal problems in sentencing)
- Schlosser, 558 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Saddler, 538 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2008) (factors for judging substantive reasonableness and weighing factors)