United States v. Steven Lincoln, No. 22-2186 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable. [ April 17, 2023 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2186 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Steven Michael Lincoln lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: January 13, 2023 Filed: April 18, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Steven Michael Lincoln pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms, possessing an unregistered firearm, and possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The district court1 imposed 100-month terms of imprisonment 1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. on the firearm offenses and a 114-month term of imprisonment on the controlledsubstance offense, to run concurrently. The 114-month total sentence was within the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Lincoln challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, which we review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (standard of review). Lincoln argues that the district court erred in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (district court abuses its discretion when it commits a clear error of judgment in weighing sentencing factors). Specifically, he argues that the district court should have given greater weight to his history and characteristics—i.e., his difficult childhood, his struggles with substance abuse, his acceptance of responsibility, his renewed commitment to recovery, and his mostly misdemeanors, relatively short prison term criminal history. See § 3553(a)(1). The sentencing transcript makes clear that the district court carefully considered those factors, but nonetheless determined that Lincoln had committed “serious crimes that merit significant punishment,” particularly in light of his lengthy criminal history. See § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A). We thus conclude that the district court did not commit any clear error in judgment in deciding to accord substantial weight to the seriousness of Lincoln’s drug and firearm offenses. See United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021) (“[Defendant’s] assertion of substantive unreasonableness amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with how the district court chose to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning his sentence.”); United States v. King, 898 F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weigh mitigating factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.” (cleaned up)). Lincoln’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
