United States v. Samuel Irvin, 691 F. App'x 297

Samuel Irvin pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of federal law after police found .22 caliber ammunition in his apartment following an incident in which he brandished a knife and pointed a shotgun at a neighbor.
District court initially calculated a Guidelines range of 57–71 months.
The court concluded Irvin’s criminal history category underrepresented his seriousness because of an older conviction for assaulting a correctional officer (too old to receive criminal history points).
Court determined that, if that prior conviction counted, Irvin’s Guidelines range would be approximately 70–87 months.
After considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and mitigating evidence (including testimony about a head injury and good work history), the court imposed an 84‑month sentence.
Irvin appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court gave improper weight to the old assault conviction and insufficient weight to his mitigating evidence.

Issue	Irvin's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the 84‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	District court overemphasized an old assault conviction and underweighted mitigating evidence	Court properly considered the old conviction under § 4A1.3 and gave appropriate weight to mitigation	Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable
Whether court could rely on a remote conviction to depart/upward vary	Remote assault conviction should not have driven upward variance	Remote conviction may be considered to show similar serious conduct under Guidelines comment and § 4A1.3	Affirmed — remote conviction properly considered
Whether district court failed to consider mitigating evidence adequately	Court ignored or minimized testimony about head injury/work ethic	Court explicitly considered and credited the testimony but reasonably declined to give it controlling weight	Affirmed — court acted within discretion
Whether district court committed clear error in weighing § 3553(a) factors	Weighting error made sentence unreasonable	Weighting was within discretion given assaultive history and other factors	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion

United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896 (8th Cir.) (standard: appellate review for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir.) (definition of substantive unreasonableness)
United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir.) (quoting factors for substantive-reasonableness review)
United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 940 (8th Cir.) (courts may consider remote prior sentences showing similar or serious dissimilar conduct)
United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878 (8th Cir.) (acknowledging mitigating evidence does not automatically render a sentence unreasonable)