United States v. Pickar
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1506
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pickar was convicted of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- District court sentenced him as a career offender to 210 months based on prior aggravated robbery and fleeing a police officer convictions.
- On appeal, this court vacated the sentence due to a then-dividing panel's view that a Minnesota fleeing-the-police conviction was not a crime of violence for career-offender purposes.
- On remand, the advisory range recalculated to 100–125 months; the government urged a 210-month sentence, while Pickar sought a downward departure or variance.
- The district court imposed 150 months after a variance upward, explaining its reasons; Pickar challenged substantive reasonableness and potential Tapia-based error.
- The panel affirms, holding no abuse of discretion and no plain error under Tapia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 150 months substantively reasonable? | Pickar asserts the court neglected mitigating factors. | Pickar's argument is unsupported; the court weighed factors properly. | affirmed as reasonable |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by not meaningfully considering mitigating factors? | Pickar contends factors like disability and non-violent conduct were underweighted. | Court properly weighed all § 3553(a) factors; no abuse. | no abuse; within wide latitude |
| Did Tapia plain-error apply to the district court's statement about treatment needs? | Pickar argues court reliance on rehabilitation motive taints sentence. | No plain error; court never indicated length was to secure treatment. | no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing decisions (en banc))
- United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (no plain error where court's remarks did not show rehabilitation motive)
- United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review of Tapia-related claims)
- United States v. Martin, 445 Fed.Appx. 692 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished; plain-error considerations in sentencing)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (cannot lengthen to promote rehabilitation)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (violent-felony status under ACCA; relevance discussed)
- Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error considerations related to program-length manipulation)
- Olson, 8th Cir. 2012 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review; sentencing-program implications)
- United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2010) (importance of proper weighing of § 3553(a) factors)