United States v. Dale McCoy, No. 17-3521 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Colloton, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court weighed defendant's mitigating factors, adequately explained its sentencing decision, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within-guidelines sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3521 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Dale McCoy, also known as Jake lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque ____________ Submitted: October 15, 2018 Filed: January 29, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dale McCoy pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of pure (actual) methamphetamine following a prior felony controlled substance conviction, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and 851. The district court1 sentenced McCoy to 327 months’ imprisonment, a sentence at the top of the advisory sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines). McCoy argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his troubled childhood, his mental health issues, his drug addiction, and his age. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s sentencing decision. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (standard of review). Against the mitigating factors listed above, the district court weighed the “particularly aggravating . . . set of circumstances” involved in this case, including McCoy’s possession of a handgun in connection with methamphetamine distribution and his use and manufacture of methamphetamine after he was released from state custody. See United States v. King, 898 F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weigh mitigating factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Moreover, the district court’s finding that McCoy presents an “extremely high risk to recidivate” is supported by McCoy’s lengthy criminal history, particularly his three state felony convictions related to methamphetamine distribution and his failure to refrain from criminal activity while on state probation or parole. Although McCoy contends that the district court ignored his arguments related to recidivism and to the long-term consequences suffered by victims of childhood abuse, we are satisfied that the district court adequately explained its decision to impose a Guidelines-range sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (“[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.”); United States v. Straw, 616 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that “[t]he district court is not required to address on record every . . . argument set forth by a defendant”). 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- The sentence is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
