United States v. Steven Vandewalker, No. 13-3606 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not err in granting the government's motion for an upward departure based on an under-represented criminal history score and dismissed conduct; sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. [ June 10, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3606 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Steven Lee Vandewalker lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: June 6, 2014 Filed: June 11, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Steven Vandewalker pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) & (d), and the district court1 sentenced him to 235 months in prison and 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 5 years of supervised release, and ordered restitution of $30,005.38. On appeal, in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vandewalker argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting the government s motion and departing upward from the Guidelines imprisonment range calculated in the presentence report based on Vandewalker s under-represented criminal history score and dismissed conduct, and that the court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Vandewalker acknowledges considerable unscored convictions, but argues the departure was erroneous because the conduct involved mainly petty offenses, with no violence until the present offense, and that the criminal history score adequately accounted for his conduct. He also argues that the departure based on the conduct underlying the dismissed charges undercut the plea bargain. We conclude, however, in light of the parties express reservation of the right to argue departures, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.3 (district court may depart upward [i]f reliable information indicates that the defendant s criminal history category substantially under-represents the seriousness of [his] criminal history or the likelihood that [he] will commit other crimes ); 5K2.21 (district court may impose upward departure for dismissed or uncharged conduct, in order to reflect the actual seriousness of the offense, based on conduct underlying charge dismissed as part of plea agreement which did not otherwise enter into determination of Guideline range); United States v. White Twin, 682 F.3d 773, 775-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Schwalk, 412 F.3d 929, 932-34 (8th Cir. 2005) (departure based on under-represented criminal history); United States v. Bolden, 368 F.3d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 2004) (departure based on conduct underlying dismissed charge). Further, we conclude the sentence was substantively reasonable, especially in light of the district court s statement that it would have varied upward even if it had not departed, based on factors such as the seriousness of the offense, Vandewalker s unprovoked assault on a bank customer, the terror inflicted upon the bank employees, -2- and Vandewalker s history and present aggressiveness and dangerousness. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applies in reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence; reviewing court may not require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentence constituting departure). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -3-
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.
