United States v. Jamie Shoulders, 988 F.3d 1061

Jamie Shoulders pleaded guilty to second-degree murder within Indian country for the May 2017 killing of Chris Janis; accomplices were Scott Benson and Clarence Yellow Hawk.
At the meeting, Shoulders fired multiple times through the driver’s-side window of Janis’s minivan; Yellow Hawk then shot Janis several more times; Janis died.
District court computed a Guidelines range of 210–262 months (Offense Level 35, CHC III), applied two-level upward departures under USSG §§5K2.1 and 5K2.6 to reach a revised range of 262–327 months, and sentenced Shoulders to 300 months.
The court characterized the sentence as an upward variance it would have imposed under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) even absent the Guidelines departures.
On appeal, Shoulders challenged procedural errors (improper departure, alleged factual mistakes, inadequate explanation) and substantive unreasonableness of the 300‑month sentence.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed unobjected-to factual/explanation claims for plain error and affirmed: any mistaken reference to who was in the van was immaterial, the §3553(a) explanation was adequate, and the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of upward Guidelines departure	Shoulders: court erred by departing upward under USSG §§5K2.1 and 5K2.6	Government: even if departure improper, court stated it would impose same sentence by upward variance under §3553(a)	Court need not decide departure error; affirmed because the same sentence would be reached by variance (Grandon)
Alleged factual mistake about who was in the van	Shoulders: judge mistakenly said the widow was in the van and relied on that factual error at sentencing	Government: judge later corrected and the misstatements were immaterial; widow and family were victims regardless	Plain‑error review — no plain error; mistake unlikely affected outcome
Adequacy of sentencing explanation under §3553(a)	Shoulders: district court failed to adequately explain the upward variance	Government: court discussed §3553(a) factors, reviewed PSR, and explained reliance on heinous firearm use and community protection	Explanation adequate; forfeiture makes reversal unlikely
Substantive reasonableness of 300‑month sentence	Shoulders: sentence substantively unreasonable; court overstated risk to other occupants and overemphasized firearm discharge	Government: court reasonably weighed factors; multiple shots into a occupied minivan warranted an aggravated sentence; "freaked out" claim unpersuasive	No abuse of discretion; variance within court's wide latitude was reasonable

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Grandon, 714 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirmance where district court would have imposed same sentence by variance)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
United States v. Bevins, 848 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2017) (district court need not make explicit findings as to each §3553(a) factor)
United States v. Chavarria‑Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2016) (burden on appellants who forfeited sentencing objections)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion occurs if court relies on improper or irrelevant factors)