United States v. Lovell, No. 14-3277 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the record shows that defendant stipulated to a 180 month sentence in his plea agreement. Further, nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave improper weight to an irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. The court denied defendant's motion requesting new counsel and raising new legal issues. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentenced and denied defendant's motion.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence in his plea agreement may not challenge that sentence on appeal; the district court did not err in giving significant weight to the nature and circumstances of defendant's offenses and the sentence it imposed was not, in any event, 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.