United States v. Joseph Evenson
864 F.3d 981
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joseph Evenson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine after being caught receiving ~167 grams; his PSR labeled him a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior Iowa convictions for third-degree burglary and attempted burglary.
- Evenson initially objected to treating the Iowa burglaries as crimes of violence but withdrew that objection at sentencing in exchange for the government’s recommendation of a two-level mitigating-role reduction; the district court accepted the reduction and sentenced him to 151 months.
- Two weeks after sentencing, the Supreme Court decided Mathis (addressing whether Iowa burglary counts as a predicate), prompting Evenson to seek appellate relief via plain-error review, arguing the career-offender designation was incorrect.
- Miguel Torres Alvarez pled guilty to conspiracy after large quantities of methamphetamine and other drugs (and a gun) were seized; his Guidelines range was 168–210 months, and the government recommended 168 months.
- Torres Alvarez sought a downward variance to 100 months based on severe childhood trauma, abuse, addiction, and mental-health issues; the district court acknowledged these factors but sentenced him to 168 months, finding the quantity of drugs, gun, and disparity concerns outweighed a variance.
- The Eighth Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed both sentences: Evenson’s claim barred by waiver; Torres Alvarez’s within-Guidelines sentence upheld as not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evenson may challenge career-offender classification after withdrawing objection at sentencing | Evenson: Mathis shows Iowa burglary is not a crime of violence, so career-offender status was erroneous and plain error review should apply | Govt: Evenson waived the issue by withdrawing his objection in exchange for an agreed reduction | Held: Waiver bars relief; withdrawing the objection was an intentional relinquishment, so plain-error review unavailable |
| Whether Torres Alvarez deserved a downward variance for traumatic history/addiction | Torres Alvarez: Severe childhood abuse, abandonment, addiction and mental-health issues justify a variance below Guidelines | Govt/District: Sentencing factors (large drug quantities, gun, sentencing disparities) outweigh mitigating history; bottom of Guidelines is sufficient | Held: No abuse of discretion; district court adequately considered mitigation and reasonably declined variance |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (waiver extinguishes error; plain‑error review unavailable)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. _ (application of categorical approach to burglary convictions)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (plain‑error standard discussion)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (reasonableness review of within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. en banc standard for reviewing sentences)
- United States v. Stevens, 149 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. precedent treating Iowa third‑degree burglary as crime of violence)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (affirming district court sentencing discretion)