United States v. Tyvion Benson
888 F.3d 1017
8th Cir.2018Background
- Benson pled guilty to conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession) and was sentenced in federal court to 54 months, to run consecutively to an undischarged 60‑month state sentence arising from the same conduct.
- In the plea agreement the parties recommended the statutory maximum (60 months) and acknowledged the district court would decide credit for time served on the related state sentence.
- Benson requested in his sentencing memorandum that the federal sentence run concurrently with the remainder of his state sentence, but did not repeat that request at sentencing; he did ask for credit for time served.
- The district court granted partial credit (6 months) and imposed a 54‑month federal term consecutive to the remaining 19 months of the state term, finding the consecutive sentence "sufficient but not more than necessary" under § 3553(a).
- Benson did not object at sentencing and now appeals, arguing the court failed to consider § 3553(a), violated U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(2), and (in a reply brief) that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors in imposing a consecutive sentence | Benson: court did not adequately consider § 3553(a) in ordering consecutive time | Government: court expressly stated sentence complies with statutory objectives and is "sufficient but not more than necessary" | Court: district court considered § 3553(a); decision to impose consecutive sentence was reasonable |
| Whether the consecutive sentence violates U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)(2) | Benson: guideline directs concurrent running when related state term is relevant conduct | Government: guidelines are advisory and do not strip district court of statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 | Court: need not decide but notes guideline is advisory; district court may impose consecutive term under § 3584 |
| Standard of review given Benson’s failure to object at sentencing | Benson: implies review for reasonableness | Government: urges plain‑error review because no contemporaneous objection | Court: applies de novo discussion of reasonableness standard but affirms that the court’s explanation sufficed; also treats late substantive‑reasonableness challenge as waived |
| Whether Benson’s substantive‑reasonableness challenge is preserved | Benson: raised in reply brief that sentence was substantively unreasonable | Government: argues waiver because not raised in opening brief or at sentencing | Court: declines to consider substantive‑reasonableness argument as waived (first raised in reply) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has broad discretion to impose consecutive sentences and must consider § 3553(a))
- Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (18 U.S.C. § 3584 applies to state as well as federal sentences)
- United States v. Lone Fight, 625 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2010) (even if guidelines disfavor consecutive sentences, § 3584 grants statutory authority to impose them)
- Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2008) (issues first raised on appeal in a reply brief are generally not considered)
- United States v. Poe, 764 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2014) (plain‑error review applied where defendant did not raise issue at sentencing)
- United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (plain‑error review appropriate when defendant did not object at sentencing)