United States v. Ryan Payne, No. 18-2132 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Melloy and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's within-guidelines range was presumptively reasonable on appeal and nothing in the record indicates the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor or made any clear error of judgment in weighing the 3553(a) factors.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2132 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Ryan Payne lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2019 Filed: July 9, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Defendant Ryan Payne is a former IRS agent. In 2018, he pled guilty to misuse of a social security number and aggravated identity theft in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), respectively. The district court1 sentenced him to 28 months’ imprisonment on the misuse charge and 24 months on the aggravated-identity-theft charge. Both terms of imprisonment were within the applicable Guidelines range, and § 1028A(b)(2) required them to run consecutively. On appeal, Payne challenges his sentence on the misuse charge only, claiming it is substantively unreasonable. Payne’s within-range sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal. United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635, 653 (8th Cir. 2019). Because there is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court “fail[ed] to consider a relevant factor” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “g[ave] significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,” or otherwise “commit[ted] a clear error of judgment” when weighing the appropriate factors, we conclude Payne failed to rebut this presumption. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
