United States v. Young, No. 10-3587 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of three counts of bank robbery and sentenced to 216 months imprisonment, with the first 36 months of the sentence running concurrently with an undischarged West Virginia sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence, procedurally erred by ordering only 36 months to run concurrently with his West Virginia sentence, and imposed a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of two bank robberies where the evidence was admissible to prove identity and the jury was properly instructed. The court also held that there was no procedural error where the district court properly rejected defendant's assertion that there was a preference for sentences to run concurrently to undischarged sentences, where the district court considered relevant circumstances, and where the district court considered 18 U.S.S.C. 3553(a) factors. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence and that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. The district court did not err in admitting evidence of two uncharged bank robberies as the evidence was admissible to prove identity and the jury was properly instructed on use of the evidence; district court properly rejected defendant's assertion that there is a preference in the Guidelines for sentences to run concurrently to undischarged sentences; district court considered the relevant circumstances in deciding to make only a portion of defendant's federal sentences concurrent with an undischarged West Virginia sentence; sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.