United States v. Phillip Bradley Sadler, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13374

Sadler pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and initially admitted he qualified for an ACCA enhancement; district court first sentenced him to 180 months.
After Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause, one of Sadler’s prior convictions (fleeing a peace officer) no longer counted, so he no longer qualified as an armed career criminal; the government conceded error and the case was remanded for resentencing.
At resentencing the advisory Guidelines range was 63–78 months; the government sought the high end of the range.
The district court imposed an upward variance to 102 months based on Sadler’s extensive and violent criminal history (nine felony convictions, 27 total adult convictions), repeated failures on supervision, prior lengthy sentences that had no deterrent effect, and public-protection considerations.
The district court acknowledged Sadler’s traumatic youth and mental/substance-abuse history but emphasized the need for accountability and public safety; it also made a passing remark that Sadler was the type of defendant Congress intended the ACCA to reach despite not "technically" qualifying after Johnson.
Sadler appealed, arguing the court relied on an improper sentencing factor (the ACCA-type remark); the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the remark negligible and the upward variance justified under § 3553(a).

Issue	Sadler's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Whether the district court relied on an improper factor by remarking Sadler was the type of defendant Congress had in mind when it passed the ACCA	The ACCA-type remark was an improper or irrelevant sentencing factor that tainted the sentence	The court’s primary basis was Sadler’s violent, extensive criminal history and risk of recidivism; the ACCA remark was a passing observation and not the basis for the sentence	The remark was negligible; no procedural or substantive error and sentence was reasonable

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. O'Connor, 567 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sentences: procedural then substantive review)
United States v. Saddler, 538 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standards for substantive unreasonableness)
United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2009) (§ 3553(a) permits upward variance for underrepresented criminal history/recidivism)
United States v. Wrice, 855 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2017) (a passing remark has negligible effect where sentence rationale is clear)