United States v. Roger Clayton
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12424
8th Cir.2016Background
- Roger R. Clayton and three accomplices planned and executed an armed robbery of First Commercial Bank in Morley, Missouri on Oct. 10, 2013; Clayton pointed a gun at and bound a bank employee while $140,014 was taken from the vault.
- Clayton was arrested Oct. 16, 2013; he pleaded guilty to bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d)), brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); a conspiracy count was dismissed under a plea agreement.
- The PSR produced an advisory Guidelines range of 168–210 months for the robbery and felon-in-possession counts, which became 180–210 months due to a 15-year statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); the consecutive 7-year mandatory term for the § 924(c) count yielded an effective Guidelines range of 264–294 months.
- Clayton’s record included multiple juvenile and adult violent/weapons convictions; the PSR also described a traumatic childhood and several mental-health diagnoses. Clayton requested the statutory minimum (264 months) citing his background.
- The district court sentenced Clayton to 279 months (middle of the Guidelines range), stating it reduced an initially intended higher sentence because of Clayton’s upbringing but emphasized Clayton’s criminal history and the aggravating offense circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by not considering defendant’s history and characteristics under § 3553(a)(1) | Clayton: court’s brief reference to his childhood was insufficient to show it considered § 3553(a) factors | Government: court’s statements plus PSR and record show it considered relevant § 3553(a) factors; no categorical recital required | No procedural error; record shows the court considered the § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether district court inadequately explained its rejection of a low-end Guidelines sentence | Clayton: court failed to explain why it did not impose a bottom-of-range sentence | Government: court explained it rejected a lower sentence due to criminal history and offense aggravation | Explanation adequate; no procedural error |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable (weighting of factors) | Clayton: court gave undue weight to criminal history and insufficient weight to childhood abuse, mental illness, cognitive impairments | Government: district court has wide latitude to weigh § 3553(a) factors and may assign greater weight to criminal history and offense seriousness | Sentence substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether 15-month variance above statutory minimum violated § 3553(a)(2) necessity and created unwarranted disparities under § 3553(a)(6) | Clayton: additional 15 months was greater than necessary and would create unwarranted sentencing disparities | Government: differences in conduct and criminal history justify the sentence; no clear error in imposing 15 extra months | No clear error; disparities argument fails; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes procedural and substantive reasonableness review framework for sentences)
- United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard where defendant did not object at sentencing)
- United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court need not rehearse each § 3553(a) factor so long as record shows consideration)
- United States v. Dieken, 432 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2006) (same principle on sufficiency of consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (evaluating whether court’s statements indicate awareness of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2008) (look to entire sentencing record, not just hearing statements)
- United States v. San-Miguel, 634 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2011) (explains abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2007) (factors constituting abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court’s wide latitude in weighing § 3553(a) factors)