United States v. Brandon Wilson, No. 16-3598 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Colloton and Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 3553(a) factors.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3598 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Brandon Devon Wilson, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: October 16, 2017 Filed: March 19, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Brandon Wilson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court1 found 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, then Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. that he was responsible for 603 grams of cocaine base under the sentencing guidelines, and determined an advisory range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment. Wilson sought a sentence at the bottom of the range; the court sentenced him at the top, to 210 months. Wilson appeals the sentence, arguing that it is substantively unreasonable because the district court ignored two mitigating factors. In particular, he complains that the court gave no weight to the facts that he cooperated with the government (albeit without providing substantial assistance under USSG § 5K1.1) and that he lacked parental guidance as a youth, because his father was absent and his mother was a drug addict. We review the reasonableness of Wilson’s sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and we presume that a sentence within the advisory guideline range is reasonable. United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004, 1010 (8th Cir. 2010); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). Although the court did not specifically discuss Wilson’s asserted cooperation and lack of parental guidance, the information was presented to the court at the hearing, and the court stated that it “considered everything [it knew] about Mr. Wilson” before sentencing him. But in explaining the sentence, the court emphasized certain aggravating factors—Wilson’s continued participation in the drug trade, his violent criminal history, and his noncompliance with conditions of supervision—that the court evidently found more significant than Wilson’s proffered mitigating circumstances. The district court “has substantial latitude to determine how much weight to give the various factors under § 3553(a),” United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir. 2009), and we see no basis to declare an abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to impose a sentence of 210 months’ imprisonment.2 2 Wilson also submitted a pro se supplemental brief, but it is Eighth Circuit policy not to consider multiple filings from a litigant who is represented by counsel. -2- The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ United States v. Conklin, 750 F.3d 773, 775 (8th Cir. 2014). -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.
