United States v. Young
644 F.3d 757
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Young robbed three South Dakota banks in Aug–Sept 2007; used similar attire and commands; tellers identified him.
- Government admitted Minnesota bank robbery photos/video to aid identity; district court allowed with limiting instruction.
- Young challenged Minnesota evidence as improper other-acts evidence, with identity as main issue.
- District court found Young a career offender; Guidelines range 210–262 months; imposed 216 months.
- 36 months of the 216 to run concurrently with an undischarged 240‑month West Virginia sentence for prior bank robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Minnesota bank-robbery evidence | Evidence prejudicial; lacking complete relevance to identity. | Evidence admissible under 404(b) to prove identity with limiting instruction. | Not abuse; admissible for identity with limiting instructions. |
| Procedural error in applying concurrent/consecutive credit | § 5G1.3(b) policy preference for concurrency with undischarged sentences ignored. | § 5G1.3(b) inapplicable; § 5G1.3(c) controls and allows discretion. | § 5G1.3(b) not applicable; court properly applied § 5G1.3(c). |
| Consideration of same-course-of-conduct argument under § 5G1.3 | District court did not consider same-conduct rationale adequately. | Court considered and found no fixed formula; discretion allowed. | Court properly evaluated the argument under § 5G1.3(c). |
| Compliance with § 3553(a) factors in sentencing | District court failed to adequately consider § 3553(a). | Court considered § 3553(a) factors and WV sentence impact; not improper. | Court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors. |
| Substantive reasonableness within Guidelines range | Within-range sentence is substantively unreasonable given WV sentence. | Sentence at bottom of range with concurrent credit is consistent with parsimony. | No abuse; sentence reasonable within range considering circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 2005) (signature-factor analysis for prior acts admissibility)
- United States v. Hill, 638 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary review for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Littlewind, 595 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2010) (limiting instructions reduce unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Becker, 636 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. 2011) (guidelines §5G1.3 interpretation for concurrent sentences)
- United States v. San-Miguel, 634 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2011) (parsimony principle and within-range sentencing framework)