United States v. Buck Otto White ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-3340
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Buck Otto White, also known as Timothy Joseph Hoffman
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
    ____________
    Submitted: October 15, 2018
    Filed: December 12, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    A jury convicted Buck Otto White of two counts of being a felon in possession
    of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1), and two counts of
    possessing stolen firearms and ammunition, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (j). The
    district court1 determined that White qualified as an armed career criminal, see 18
    U.S.C. 924(e), and White’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was 324 to 405
    months. The district court varied downward and sentenced him concurrently on all
    four counts to a total term of 300 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised
    release. White later moved to vacate his sentence under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , arguing
    that he did not qualify as an armed career criminal. The district court granted the
    motion and vacated White’s original sentence. White’s revised guidelines range was
    120 to 150 months’ imprisonment. Upon resentencing, the district court varied
    upward and imposed a total sentence of 210 months’ imprisonment. This consisted
    of concurrent sentences of 120 months for Counts 1 and 3 and concurrent sentences
    of 90 months for Counts 2 and 4, with the two concurrent sentences to be served
    consecutively. White now appeals, arguing that the revised sentence is substantively
    unreasonable.
    We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential
    abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). “A
    district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that
    should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper
    or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those
    factors commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Borromeo, 
    657 F.3d 754
    ,
    756 (8th Cir. 2011). Because White’s 210-month sentence exceeded his
    recommended guidelines range, we may not apply a presumption of reasonableness
    to the sentence, see Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    , but it is an “unusual case when we reverse
    a district court sentence . . . as substantively unreasonable,” United States v.
    Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 464 (8th Cir. 2009).
    1
    The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    -2-
    White argues that the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive
    sentences at resentencing when it originally imposed concurrent sentences. He notes
    that the only difference between the two sentencing hearings was that he no longer
    qualified as an armed career criminal and claims that the district court “obviously
    sought to get as close as it felt it could get to an ACCA-like sentence . . . by using the
    tactic of consecutive sentences.” But the sentencing record makes clear that the
    district court adequately explained the basis for White’s revised sentence. The court
    observed that it initially varied downward and imposed a 300-month sentence
    because it thought that White’s original guidelines range was too high. These same
    considerations led to the conclusion that White’s revised guidelines range was too
    low. As the court stated, “So just as the guidelines before were too high, the
    guidelines . . . don’t really take into account the full criminal history that you have.”
    White further argues that the facts of his case do not warrant a total punishment
    of 210 months’ imprisonment. He maintains that he is not “a predatory offender, a
    violent offender, or a gang member” but simply “a life-long methamphetamine
    addict.” But the sentence reflected White’s long history of recidivism. As the court
    stated, “As people get to be over the age of 35, they don’t commit crimes anymore.
    It’s not really true in your case. It just goes back—it’s very sad, you know, the start
    of your experience in the criminal courts and it just never really quits.” For this
    reason, the court thought White posed “a danger to the community.” White’s
    extensive criminal history includes convictions for tying up and robbing three victims
    at gunpoint and for striking a police officer in the head with a closed fist. During this
    case, moreover, White absconded from pretrial supervision and led police on a high-
    speed chase on snow-covered roads through a densely populated area. We see no
    basis for finding the sentence unreasonable and conclude that the district court did not
    abuse its discretion.
    For all these reasons, we affirm White’s sentence.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-3340

Filed Date: 12/12/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021