United States v. Deiago Davis, No. 17-1127 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. This opinion is issued by Judge Benton and Judge Stras pursuant to 8th Cir. R. 47E. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 359 (8th Cir. 2016). The district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 3553(a) factors or in imposing a sentence at the top of defendant's uncontested guidelines range.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1127 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Deiago Davis lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: May 14, 2018 Filed: July 10, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.1 ____________ PER CURIAM. This case returns to us after resentencing. In the previous appeal, we determined that the government had failed to prove facts sufficient to enhance Deiago 1 This opinion is filed by Judge Benton and Judge Stras pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E. Davis’s sentence under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A). United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 359, 365 (8th Cir. 2016). On remand, the government chose not to present additional evidence to support the enhancement, but the district court2 imposed the same 46month sentence. Davis appeals. With the enhancement, Davis’s Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months; without it, his range was 37 to 46 months. Davis argues that the district court gave too little consideration to the fact that his Guidelines range was lower on remand, and thus abused its discretion by imposing a top-of-the-range sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). At resentencing, the district court adopted the uncontested Guidelines range, and then provided a detailed explanation for its sentencing decision. The court cited Davis’s criminal record, which is extensive despite his youth, and explained that Davis’s underlying conviction for criminal contempt evinced a disrespect for the law. The court also expressed the view that Davis was at a high risk to reoffend. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We affirm. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
