MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant indicted for felony firearm possession.

Jevon Strayhorn appeals his 57-month sentence, following a guilty plea, to
being a felon in possession of a firearm. Strayhorn contends the district court
procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain why it did not take his suggestion
to sentence him below the Guidelines range, and instead sentenced him to the top of
the 46 to 57-month range. Strayhorn further contends that the sentence was
substantively unreasonable. We disagree on both counts.
In reviewing Strayhorn's sentencing challenge, we first ensure that the district
court committed no significant procedural error, which would include failing to
sufficiently explain its sentence. United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 378 (8th
Cir. 2009). If the sentence is procedurally sound, we evaluate the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. Further,
a sentence imposed within the calculated Guidelines range is presumed reasonable.
United States v. Parker, 871 F.3d 590, 608 (8th Cir. 2017). The presumption may be
rebutted, but it is the defendant's burden to do so. United States v. Herra-Herra, 860
F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2017).
The district court did not err procedurally because it explained its reasons for
the chosen sentence. Our review of the record indicatesthat the district court was not
The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1
District of Missouri.
-2-
inclined to give Strayhorn a below-range sentence given his history of recidivism,
including the fact that he committed the current offense while on supervised release
2
from a previous federal felon-in-possession conviction. The district court explained
the sentence well enough that we can discern on appeal why the district court chose
the sentence that it did. See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 671 (8th
Cir. 2016) ("[W]here a matter is conceptually simple, and the record makes clear that
the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, the law does not require
the judge to write or say more."). Nor has Strayhorn rebutted the presumption that
his within-Guidelines-range sentence is reasonable

Outcome: Accordingly, we affirm.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: