United States v. Marion Wise, III, 17 F.4th 785

DEA investigation identified Marion Wise as a heroin distributor; a confidential source bought heroin from Wise (2 times) and from co-defendant Sherry Finn (4 times).
On July 17, 2019, agents found a deceased male at Finn’s residence; autopsy showed heroin and methamphetamine overdose. Finn said the heroin came from Wise and that Wise warned it was “strong stuff.”
Agents searched Wise’s home the same day and seized 32.7 g black‑tar heroin, 26 g “China white” heroin, small amounts of methamphetamine and marijuana, and $7,111; two young children lived there.
Wise admitted frequent purchases and distribution (to ~8 people), including to Finn, and described an earlier incident where a woman seized after using heroin purchased from him; those present did not call 911.
Wise pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute >100 grams of a heroin mixture. The district court calculated an adjusted offense level yielding a Guidelines range of 188–235 months, but varied upward to a 300‑month sentence after weighing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
On appeal Wise argued procedural error (district court relied on clearly erroneous facts—specifically mentioning fentanyl) and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable for improperly weighing mitigating factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court relied on clearly erroneous facts (fentanyl) when selecting sentence	Wise: Court’s mention of fentanyl shows reliance on facts not in evidence, producing procedural error	Gov/District Court: Mention was descriptive of heroin’s dangers, not a basis for sentence; even if error, harmless because court relied on death and criminal history	Court: No procedural error; even if error, harmless—sentence would be same
Whether district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors and abused discretion	Wise: Court underweighted mitigating factors (family history, addiction) and overweighed aggravators	Gov: Court considered all factors, reasonably emphasized aggravating conduct and history	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentencing analysis was thorough and variance was reasonable

United States v. Clark, 998 F.3d 363 (8th Cir. 2021) (two‑step review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural error includes sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts)
United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665 (8th Cir. 2021) (plain‑error standard when no objection at sentencing)
United States v. Moody, 930 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2019) (harmless‑error standard for sentencing errors)
United States v. Godfrey, 863 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Adams, 12 F.4th 883 (8th Cir. 2021) (deference to district court sentencing decisions)
United States v. Nguyen, 829 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court may assign greater weight to some § 3553(a) factors)