United States v. Keasia Morrow, No. 21-3979 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and the district court sentenced her to 42 months in prison. She maintained that her sentence is unreasonably high.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the record reflects that additional considerations drove the district court's sentence. For example, the court was concerned that the calculated Guidelines range didn't adequately account for the severity of Defendant’s offense conduct, which it characterized as a "series of serious criminal conduct . . . including the sexual abuse of a minor" that the court found "very troubling." The court also expressed concern about Defendant’s behavior during pretrial detention, where she incurred 25 separate violations of jail rules, including her possession of sharpened objects and drugs as well as a false allegation of rape against jail staff. Thus, the court discerned no abuse of discretion in the court's treatment of the relevant sentencing criteria, and "reversal is not appropriate simply because the district court did not weigh" these considerations as Defendant prefers.
Further, the court wrote that though the court did not apply a sentencing enhancement based on this finding, it nevertheless took it into account in selecting a sentence. Finally, it is true that at one point during the sentencing hearing the district court remarked that Defendant could "get some treatment that she may need" while in prison. But the record as a whole demonstrates that the sentence was driven by her offense conduct, her criminal history, and the court's desire to protect the public.
Court Description: [Arnold, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the sentencing record does not support defendant's argument that her sentence was improperly lengthened to ensure her participation in a specific treatment program. [ October 07, 2022 ]
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.