United States v. Christopher White, Jr., No. 22-2823 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Grasz, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2823 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher Tyrone White, Jr. Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________ Submitted: January 13, 2023 Filed: March 9, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher White, Jr. pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 54 months in 1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. prison, varying 17 months upward from the top end of the Guidelines range. We affirm White’s sentence. White challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, which we review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2017). The district court imposed a two-level enhancement for “recklessly creat[ing] a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. Along with the enhancement, the district court varied upward, citing, among other things, the dangerousness of White’s offense. Because the enhancement already accounted for the dangerousness of the offense, White says that the district court abused its discretion by assigning significant weight to the same conduct to justify the variance. See United States v. Obi, 25 F.4th 574, 581 (8th Cir. 2022). We disagree. A district court may impose a variance based on factors used to calculate the Guidelines range, and it has wide discretion to weigh some factors more heavily than others. Id. at 581−82. Here, the district court imposed the variance to reflect the seriousness of White’s offense, protect the public, and deter White and others from acting as White did here. White’s conviction arose out of a dangerous encounter with the public and police. He was loading a shotgun in a shopping center parking lot. When an officer approached, White pushed the officer, causing him to fall into White’s car. As the officer tried to take White into custody, White resisted and started to drive away, across the parking lot, with the officer in the car trying to restrain him. White’s criminal record also shows that he has a history of fleeing from the police, casting doubt on his ability to follow the law. All things considered, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
