United States v. Shawn Gant, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14515

Background

Shawn Patrick Gant was convicted by a jury of three counts of arson under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) for fires in July 2009 (girlfriend’s sister’s house), October 2009 (ex-girlfriend’s house), and May 2010 (Gant’s apartment). He received concurrent 240-month terms on each count, consecutive to an existing 10-year federal sentence.
Investigators labeled the causes of the charged fires “undetermined” but found Gant was at or near two of the scenes shortly before the fires; witnesses reported incriminating statements and admissions by Gant about setting fires while drinking or under stress.
The government sought to admit extensive prior-acts evidence of arson; the district court limited that evidence to four prior fires (2001, 2002 workplace, 2002 car burn admission, 2004 apartment) and several statements, excluding other requested prior acts as overly prejudicial.
Trial evidence included the limited prior-arson convictions and admissions, testimony from former inmates recounting Gant’s statements and behavior, and witnesses linking Gant to the charged fires; the jury convicted on all counts.
At sentencing the district court departed/varied upward from an advisory Guidelines range (130–162 months) to 240 months under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(3) (circumstances inadequately considered) and § 3553(a), citing Gant’s danger to the community, serial-arson conduct, occupied structures, and unscored criminal conduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-acts under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)	Prior-arson convictions and statements were irrelevant or excessively prejudicial and used only to show propensity	Prior acts were admissible to prove intent, absence of accident, identity and plan; court limited scope to reduce prejudice	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion admitting four prior fires/statements for non-propensity purposes and limiting others
Sufficiency of the evidence	Convictions rest on speculation; evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Testimony, admissions, proximity to fires, animus toward victims, and prior acts permit reasonable inference of arson	Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to verdict, jury reasonably found elements beyond a reasonable doubt
Procedural correctness of upward departure/variance	Sentence over-punishes; insufficient consideration of mental health; consecutive term improper	Guidelines understate seriousness; departure under §5K2.0(a)(3) justified; §3553(a) factors (danger, deterrence, recidivism) support upward variance and consecutive term	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in departing/varying upward and imposing consecutive sentence
Prejudice from government's closing argument referencing priors	Government argued priors for propensity rather than permissible purposes	Argument linked priors to intent/absence of accident and modus operandi, not improper propensity-only argument	Affirmed: closing remarks were permissible and relevant to intent/absence of accident

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Lindsey, 702 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Farish, 535 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2008) (404(b) reversals only when evidence solely shows propensity)
United States v. Tyerman, 701 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2012) (Rule 404(b) admissibility factors)
United States v. Mora, 81 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1996) (relevance requires any showing that evidence makes an element more or less likely)
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Harris, 134 F.3d 608 (4th Cir. 1998) (repetition of similar prior acts supports absence of accident)
United States v. Cook, 454 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2006) (prior convictions admissible to show intent)
United States v. Hermes, 847 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1988) (prior arson admissions relevant to intent)
United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (long-ago convictions admissible under 404(b))
United States v. Brown, 702 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2013) (permissible to suggest priors shed light on modus operandi in closing)
United States v. Aldridge, 664 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review)
United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2005) (jury verdicts should not be overturned lightly)
United States v. Davis, 534 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2008) (totality of incriminating evidence can sustain conviction)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentence reasonableness)
United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2011) (substantive-reasonableness standard for sentences)
United States v. Hawkman, 438 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2006) (upward departure where harm exceeds typical offense)
United States v. Lee, 545 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2008) (consecutive sentence upheld where offenses serious and explained)
United States v. Ford, 705 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court may weigh factors like mental health less heavily)