United States v. Gerard Boyd, 956 F.3d 988

Boyd, a felon, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) after police found a stolen handgun following an apartment disturbance.
At the scene a complainant said Boyd pulled a handgun and told her not to cross him; she said she did not feel threatened and Boyd never pointed the gun at her.
Presentence report (PSR) recited multiple prior arrests, including allegations of violent assaults on past girlfriends (burned with a cigar; hit with a brick; choked), and prior convictions; Boyd did not object to the PSR’s factual descriptions at sentencing.
Guideline range was 18–24 months (base offense level 13, criminal history category III); district court varied upward to 42 months citing criminal history, seriousness of conduct, public protection, and deterrence.
On appeal Boyd argued procedural error (reliance on unproven/uncharged arrests and mischaracterizing the complainant) and that the upward variance was substantively unreasonable; the Eighth Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion and affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliance on prior arrests / unproven facts at sentencing	Prior arrests are improper basis for upward sentence; PSR facts unproven and should not support variance	Facts underlying arrests are part of history/character under §3553(a); PSR facts were not objected to and were fair game	No procedural error; court permissibly relied on PSR facts and underlying arrest conduct for a variance
Characterization of complainant as a "victim" / misidentification as girlfriend	Error to treat felon-in-possession as having a victim; mislabeling and misidentification were clear mistakes	Complainant suffered a threatened gun-related harm; the misstatement was corrected and harmless	Not clearly erroneous; complainant was victim of a threat and the slip did not affect the sentence
Substantive reasonableness of upward variance to 42 months	Variance was greater than necessary and unreasonable given Guidelines; relied on improper factors	Variance justified by violent history, number/seriousness of arrests, and facts of this offense to protect public and deter	Variance was reasonable; no abuse of discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors
Consideration of prior drug offenses	Court improperly relied on prior drug offenses	Court did not base variance on drug use; defense counsel admitted many past crimes were driven by drug abuse	Even if considered, counsel’s admission supported reliance; not reversible error

United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for sentencing abuse of discretion)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts may not base a sentence on clearly erroneous facts; deference to district court variances)
United States v. Garnette, 474 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2007) (review standards for reasonableness and extent of guideline variances)
United States v. White, 840 F.3d 550 (8th Cir. 2016) (prior arrests alone cannot support a §4A1.3 upward departure, but facts underlying arrests may inform a variance)
United States v. Thorn, 413 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2005) (failing to object to PSR facts at sentencing limits appellate challenge)
United States v. Mateo, 471 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2006) (courts may extrapolate from uncontested PSR facts to evaluate defendant’s characteristics under §3553(a))