United States v. Thorne, No. 17-1358 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseFactors that have already been taken into account in calculating the advisory Guidelines range can nevertheless form the basis of a variance. The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's resentence on remand from the district court. Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison. The court held that the district court did not err by applying an upward variance of 83 months from the high end of the Sentencing Range. The sentence in this case was supported by factors not accounted for, either in full or in part, by the Guidelines. The district court also did not err by considering the sentencing factors, including defendant's extensive adult criminal record and likelihood of recidivism. Therefore, defendant's sentence, even if it was in the highest criminal history category, was not substantively unreasonable.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion see United States v. Thorne, 837 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2016). In that case, the court remanded the matter to the district court for resentencing following the government's concession that defendant's Florida second degree burglary convictions did not qualify as violent felonies for ACCA sentencing; on remand, the court imposed an upward variance from the guidelines range or 30 to 37 months to the statutory maximum of 120 months; factors which have already been taken into account in calculating the guidelines range can form the basis for a variance; in any event, the variance is fully supported by factors not accounted for, either in full or in part, by the guidelines; the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the sentencing factors, and defendant's sentence 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.