United States v. Julius Heard, No. 17-2225 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The court lacks authority to review the district court's denial of defndant's request for a downward departure under Guidelines Sec. 4A1.3(b)(1), as the district court was aware of its authority to depart and defendant has not alleged the court acted with an unconstitutional motive.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2225 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Julius Malik Heard lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: April 13, 2018 Filed: June 28, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Julius Heard appeals his 71-month sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that the district 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. court erred in denying a downward departure based on overstatement of Heard’s criminal history. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that we lack authority to review the district court’s denial of a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) because the district court was aware of its authority to depart, and Heard does not contend that the district court had any unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Johnson, 517 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 2008) (“We will generally not review a decision not to grant a downward departure unless the district court had an unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought that it was without authority to grant the departure.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -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.
