United States v. Eason, No. 09-3464 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to four counts of bank robbery and based on two prior burglary convictions, the district court found that he was a career offender and sentenced him to 151 months in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was improperly sentenced as a career offender and the career-offender-enhanced sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant's prior burglary conviction was a crime of violence and in determining that his advisory guidelines sentencing range should therefore include a career offender enhancement. The court rejected the government's contention that the second issue fell within the appeal waiver. The court held, however, that the district court's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the court weighed the mitigating circumstances argued in defendant's Sentencing Memorandum and at the sentencing hearing against the serious offense conviction - four bank robberies in a one-year time span - and defendant's long history of crimes and substance abuse.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's Tennessee burglary conviction qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act; defendant's plea agreement did not waive his right to challenge the reasonableness of his sentence; sentence was not greater than necessary to achieve sentencing goals and 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.