United States v. Deangelo Grant, No. 17-2846 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. A court may vary upward based on a defendant's criminal history even though that history has already been accounted for in the Guidelines calculation; sentence was not substantively unreasonable or an abuse of the district court's discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2846 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Deangelo Tarryl Grant lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: September 24, 2018 Filed: October 12, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Deangelo Tarryl Grant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm that he threw from the window of his car while attempting to flee a traffic stop. The district court1 determined that Grant’s advisory guidelines sentencing range was 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment. Explaining its “obligation to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the court imposed a 99-month sentence. Grant appeals, arguing the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. Grant argues the district court abused its discretion in varying upward because it gave undue weight to Grant’s offense conduct and extensive criminal history -factors already considered in determining the advisory guidelines range -- and did not consider his family history of drug and alcohol abuse and the lack of prior violent felony convictions. As we have repeatedly stated, “a court may vary upward based on criminal history even though that history has already been accounted for in the Guidelines.” United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724, 727 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 2012). The district court articulated many reasons why an upward variance of twelve months was warranted -- the “irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous” nature of Grant’s attempt to flee police and discard his weapon, his lengthy criminal history, and the court’s determination that his conduct “present[ed] a danger to the public.” After careful review of the sentencing record, we conclude this is not the “unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence -- whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range -- as substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its “substantial sentencing discretion.” United States v. Abrica-Sanchez, 808 F.3d 330, 335 (8th Cir. 2015). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
