United States v. William Carr, No. 20-3456 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Erickson, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court committed neither procedural nor plain error in sentencing defendant, and the term of imprisonment imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3456 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. William Carr Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2021 Filed: November 30, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. William Carr received a 40-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to illegally possessing a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). Although he challenges the sentence on both procedural and substantive grounds, we affirm. We conclude that there was no procedural error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Becerra, 958 F.3d 725, 731 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing a sentencing challenge raised for the first time on appeal for plain error). The district court1 considered each of the mitigating circumstances he presented, including his “mental and emotional health,” and simply decided that they did not justify a lower sentence. See id.; United States v. Kay, 717 F.3d 659, 663 (8th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the sentence itself was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Washington, 893 F.3d 1076, 1080–81 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a sentence within the advisory range is presumptively reasonable). The district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, including Carr’s dangerous behavior while trying to evade the police, and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). In the end, his argument really comes down to a disagreement with how the district court weighed various factors, which “alone does not justify reversal.” United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Nguyen, 829 F.3d 907, 925–26 (8th Cir. 2016) (acknowledging the “wide latitude” that district courts have to weigh the statutory sentencing factors). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
