United States v. Robert Neely
690 F. App'x 449
8th Cir.2017Background
- On May 29, 2015, police stopped a car and found a loaded .38 revolver in the backseat; Neely, a passenger, admitted ownership. He was later indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The PSR set a base offense level of 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) (possession after two felony convictions for crimes of violence), reduced by 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, yielding total offense level 21.
- With a criminal history category V, Neely’s advisory Guidelines range was 70–87 months. The district court adopted the PSR calculations and acknowledged the parties’ submissions and letters.
- Neely sought a 36‑month sentence, arguing mitigation based on assaults and threats stemming from his 1998 cooperation as a state witness and a difficult childhood; he expressed remorse and family responsibilities.
- The Government emphasized Neely’s extensive criminal history, including four adult felony convictions and numerous misdemeanors and probation violations.
- The district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors, questioned whether Neely’s later offenses were caused by fear from his testimony, stressed deterrence and respect for law, and imposed a 72‑month sentence (near the bottom of the Guidelines). Neely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the within‑Guidelines 72‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Neely: district court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation (assaults/threats after testifying) and his difficult childhood; sentence greater than necessary under § 3553(a) | Government: court considered mitigation but reasonably concluded Neely’s criminal history and need for deterrence warranted the sentence | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; district court considered and weighed factors and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clay, 622 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2010) (states standard: review of substantive reasonableness is abuse‑of‑discretion)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets framework for deferential appellate review and abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentences)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting appellate review of substantive reasonableness is narrow and deferential)
- United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining within‑Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable and district court’s weighing of factors is afforded deference)