United States v. Bonnell, No. 18-2371 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by applying USSG 5G1.3(d) and concluding that a consecutive sentence was required in this instance. Furthermore, the district court's discussion of the prison system in practical terms was not in error and, even if defendant could show error, his claim failed at step three of plain error review because he failed to show a reasonable probability that but for the error he would have received a more reasonable sentence. In this case, the district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines after thoroughly reviewing defendant's criminal history, mental health, career aspirations, family circumstances, parole options, and need for the sentence imposed.
Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Benton, Wollman, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Sentence. Appeal from imposition of sentence consecutive to undischarged state sentence. Under plain error review, the district court did not plainly err, as the court did not conclude it was required to impose consecutive sentences but reasoned it was the right thing to do; and properly considered the time served on the undischarged sentence and the time likely to be served. Bonnell cannot show a reasonable probability to but for any error he would have received a more favorable sentence. The sentence is also substantively reasonable, as the district court weighed the proper factors and imposed a sentence as the low end of the Guidelines range.
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.