United States v. Jeremy Warren
706 F. App'x 333
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jeremy Lee Warren pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The advisory Guidelines range was 51–63 months; the government requested an upward variance based on Warren’s criminal history.
- At sentencing the district court imposed a 12‑month upward variance, sentencing Warren to 75 months and ordered that sentence to run consecutively to other sentences.
- Warren had multiple prior felony convictions spanning 2004–2016 and a history of methamphetamine addiction; he previously failed to complete a drug treatment program.
- Warren challenged the sentence on appeal, arguing the district court abused its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and erred in ordering the sentence to run consecutively.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion and the variance and consecutive term were reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors and granting an upward variance | Warren: court overemphasized criminal history and failed to give proper weight to his addiction and disability | Govt/District Court: court appropriately emphasized repeated felony conduct and considered addiction and treatment opportunities | Affirmed — no abuse: court reasonably weighed factors and defendant showed only disagreement with weighting |
| Whether imposing the 75‑month sentence (12‑month variance) was substantively unreasonable | Warren: variance excessive given mitigating factors | Govt/District Court: variance justified by criminal history and §3553(a) factors | Affirmed — variance not substantively unreasonable; appellate deference to district court |
| Whether the district court erred by ordering the federal sentence to run consecutively to other sentences | Warren: consecutive imposition was improper or required separate statement of reasons | Govt/District Court: consecutive sentence permitted after considering §3553(a); no separate statement required | Affirmed — consecutive sentence reasonable; no requirement for separate detailed statement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standards for abuse of discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Reynolds, 643 F.3d 1130 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court has wide latitude in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. San‑Miguel, 634 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2011) (deference to district court’s factor weighting)
- United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (defendant must show more than disagreement with district court’s weight assignment)
- United States v. Jenkins, 758 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2014) (emphasis on consistent and recurring criminal conduct may be appropriate)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (no presumption of unreasonableness for outside‑Guidelines sentences; appellate deference to district court’s variance decision)
- United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (review of consecutive sentences for reasonableness; no requirement for separate statement of reasons)