United States v. Wrice, No. 15-3772 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Defendant appealed his 108 month sentence, arguing that the district court gave significant weight to an improper factor in determining his sentence. In this case, the court explained that it need not decide the incongruity between defendant's child care and his proven out-of-state drug distribution, and whether it would be an improper factor to consider. The court found that the district court's remark did not indicate that it relied on it to any meaningful degree. Rather, the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including the crime of conviction, defendant's family history, current marijuana use, gang association, fugitive status, criminal acts while a fugitive, and conduct during arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not give weight to an improper sentencing factor, as the remark defendant points to had negligible effect on his sentence and the district court did not abuse its discretion in focusing on other relevant and permissible factors, such as the crime, defendant's family history, drug use, gang history, fugitive status and conduct during arrest and his time as a fugitive.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3772 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Justin Wrice lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: October 17, 2016 Filed: February 13, 2017 [Published] ____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Justin Wrice was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment—the high end of his Guidelines range—for conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. He appeals that sentence, arguing that the district court1 gave significant weight to an improper factor in determining his sentence. According to Wrice, the court gave too much weight to its “obvious skepticism that Mr. Wrice could both take care of his child every day in Chicago, and at the same time commit criminal offenses in Iowa.” (Footnote omitted.) Giving significant weight to an improper sentencing factor is an abuse of discretion. United States v. Meza–Lopez, 808 F.3d 743, 745 (8th Cir. 2015). Here, the court addressed the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by starting with the facts of the crime. Between August 2013 and February 2014, Wrice and a coconspirator distributed crack cocaine and sold guns in Waterloo, Iowa. Then the court made what seems like an aside: This at the time — this all occurred in the Northern District of Iowa and Mr. Wrice claims that he always lived in Chicago; took care of his child; took the child to daycare; saw his child every day and it doesn’t seem to me that those two things jive.2 The court went on to note Wrice’s gang history, his marijuana use, his attempt to flee arrest while possessing crack and heroin with substantial sums of cash, his prior theftrelated conviction, and his lack of employment-related earnings. The court also considered facts in Wrice’s favor, such as his lack of alcohol or major drug problems, his specialized skills, and his good family support. We do not decide whether the incongruity between Wrice’s child care and his proven out-of-state drug distribution would be an improper factor to consider, because it did not receive significant weight. The court’s remark does not indicate 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 2 The Chicago/Iowa disconnect, then, was not the “very first thing the court made note of in justifying its sentence,” as Wrice asserts. -2- that the court relied on its surmise to any meaningful degree. The court’s discussion of the § 3553(a) factors covered three transcript pages. Given the undisputed facts of the offense, the remark’s effect on the ultimate sentence was negligible. The court focused on the crime of conviction and Wrice’s family history, current marijuana use, gang association, fugitive status, criminal acts while a fugitive, and conduct during arrest. The court did not give significant weight to an improper factor. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -3-

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.