United States v. Kimani Sterling, 20-1177

Defendant Sterling was resentenced after this court remanded for failure to prove a drug quantity above a base offense level of 24 in United States v. Sterling, 942 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2019).
On remand the district court found a base offense level of 24 and a Guidelines range of 84–105 months.
The district court imposed a 125-month sentence (an upward variance) to run consecutively to an unrelated state murder conviction; this matched the original sentence.
Sterling appealed, arguing the court failed to adequately explain the upward variance (procedural error) and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Because Sterling did not object below, the court applied plain-error review to the procedural-explanation claim.
The Eighth Circuit held the district court’s explanation—reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), consideration of parties’ arguments, emphasis on danger to the public—was adequate and that the upward, consecutive sentence was not substantively unreasonable; it affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of district court’s explanation for upward variance	Sterling: explanation was insufficiently detailed to justify the upward variance	Court/Govt: reliance on § 3553(a), consideration of arguments, and emphasis on public danger sufficed; no need for specific findings on each factor	Affirmed—under plain-error review the explanation was adequate
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Sterling: 125-month above-Guidelines, consecutive sentence, was substantively unreasonable	Court/Govt: sentencing factors (danger, accountability, deterrence, protection) justified variance; consecutive run-time not unreasonable	Affirmed—no abuse of discretion, sentence substantively reasonable

United States v. Sterling, 942 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2019) (remand for inadequate drug-quantity proof)
United States v. White, 863 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain-error standard when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
United States v. Clark, 998 F.3d 363 (8th Cir. 2021) (sentencing explanation need only show consideration of arguments and a reasoned basis)
United States v. Shoulders, 988 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2021) (forfeited objection makes showing that more explanation would have reduced sentence difficult)
United States v. Bevins, 848 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2017) (sentencing court not required to make specific findings on each § 3553(a) factor)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)