United States v. Ari Sorto, No. 20-2119 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court had authority to make defendant's sentences consecutive and did not abuse its discretion in doing so; the consecutive sentences did not create an unwarranted sentencing disparity as the co-defendant in the case was not similarly situated.. [ December 04, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2119 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Ari Jordan Sorto lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: December 2, 2020 Filed: December 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ari Jordan Sorto appeals after he pleaded guilty to two counts of using a communication facility in the commission of a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 843(b), 846, and the district court1 sentenced him to forty-eight months in prison on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the imposition of consecutive prison terms. Because Sorto failed to object at sentencing to the imposition of consecutive prison terms, we review for plain error. See United States v. Williams, 934 F.3d 804, 807 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (standard of review). After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The district court had the authority to impose consecutive sentences after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and its statement that it considered all of the factors, and thorough discussion of some of them, was more than adequate to demonstrate it sufficiently considered the factors when imposing consecutive sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b); United States v. Poe, 764 F.3d 914, 916-17 (8th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by counsel’s argument that Sorto’s sentence created an unwarranted disparity when compared to a co-defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Sorto was not similarly situated to this co-defendant, for she negotiated an entirely different conviction, and Sorto’s criminal history was admittedly different. “[D]isparate sentences among dissimilar defendants are not unwarranted.” United States v. Fry, 792 F.3d 884, 893 (8th Cir. 2015); see United States v. Gaye, 902 F.3d 780, 791-92 (8th Cir. 2018). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2-
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.
