United States v. Gregory Chandler ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2365
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gregory Carroll Chandler
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota
____________
Submitted: October 17, 2022
Filed: January 10, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Chandler appeals his revocation sentence, arguing procedural error
and substantive unreasonableness. We affirm.
Chandler pled guilty to knowingly possessing firearms by a prohibited person
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). He was sentenced to three years of probation.
This represented a variance from his United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“Guidelines”) range of 30 to 37 months of imprisonment.
Near the end of the probation period and after a search of his residence,
Chandler admitted to violating a condition of his supervised release, specifically by
possessing the controlled substance marijuana. Additionally, drug paraphernalia,
shotgun ammunition, and multiple edged weapons were found in Chandler’s home.
At Chandler’s revocation hearing, the district court 1 heard or recited
information about Chandler’s history, the events leading to revocation, the initial
sentencing hearing, and the lenient sentence he had initially received. The district
court also expressed frustration because Chandler “used” or “abused” the
“tremendous break” received at the initial sentencing. Further, the district court
noted “there are too many violations here for the Court to overlook,” including
Chandler submitting an altered urine sample and being verbally abusive with the
probation officer.
The supplemental presentence report (“PSR”) correctly provided a Guidelines
range revocation sentence of three to nine months. However, during the revocation
hearing, the district court stated, “the guideline range is 30 to 37 months of custody.
. . . I’m looking at the wrong thing here. Yeah. That was the original range of
custody. . . . No. 30 to 37 months is correct, isn’t it? . . . That is correct.” The
district court then went on to sentence Chandler to eight months of incarceration,
stating such period was “far under the guideline range. Normally he would receive
a sentence of 30 months[.]” Counsel did not object to the Guidelines range stated at
the time of the hearing.
Chandler asserts procedural error occurred when the district court improperly
calculated the Guidelines range and argues his resulting revocation sentence was
1
The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
-2-
substantively unreasonable. Because Chandler did not raise the issue of procedural
error before the district court, we review it for plain error. United States v. Ross, 29
F.4th 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2022). We review the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1008.
“Procedural errors include[, among other things,] failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range[.]” Id. (quoting United States v.
Godfrey, 863 F.3d 1088, 1094–95 (8th Cir. 2017)). There can be no dispute that
although the district court had the correct Guidelines range listed in the PSR, it stated
the incorrect advisory range during the hearing. Under the plain error standard,
Chandler established the Guidelines range error was “clear or obvious.” United
States v. Combs, 44 F.4th 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Molina-Martinez v.
United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016)). Further, “a defendant can rely on the
application of an incorrect Guidelines range to show an effect on his substantial
rights.” Molina-Martinez, 578 U.S. at 203. However, “[w]e will exercise our
discretion to correct such an error only if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity
or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Coleman, 961 F.3d
1024, 1027 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736
(1993)).
Chandler contends the error necessarily seriously affected the judicial
proceedings because the district court may have sentenced him differently had it
understood the mistake. We disagree. While the district court did not explicitly state
it would have sentenced Chandler to the same sentence absent the erroneous
Guidelines range, the district court declared Chandler committed “too many
violations here for the Court to overlook” and had “abused” the “tremendous break”
allowed at the previous sentencing. Moreover, the district court did not merely
sentence Chandler to the bottom of the supposed Guidelines range or the adjacent
range; it imposed a sentence significantly below that range. In this case, the district
court based the sentence on its careful evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
in the unique circumstances of this case and imposed a sentence less than one-third
of the lowest sentence in the mistaken range. There is no reasonable probability the
-3-
district court would have imposed a lighter sentence but for the error. Under plain
error review, we conclude the stated Guidelines range mistake did not seriously
affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Next, Chandler argues the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable
sentence by failing to give appropriate weight to mitigating circumstances. “Where,
as here, a sentence imposed is within the advisory guideline range, we typically
accord it a presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Campbell, 986 F.3d
782, 800 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, the “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. Barber, 4 F.4th 689, 692 (8th Cir. 2021)
(citation omitted). Even so, “[t]he district court has wide latitude to weigh the
[revocation-specific] § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater
weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” Id. (citation omitted).
The district court did not fail to consider relevant mitigating factors. The
district court was aware of Chandler’s history, mental and physical health, and
personal and financial responsibilities, which were discussed during the revocation
hearing. The district court affirmed it had read the letters submitted on Chandler’s
behalf. Chandler spoke during the revocation hearing. The district court specifically
noted it was required to consider the factors set forth in § 3553 and view the
Guidelines range as advisory. Ultimately, we view Chandler’s argument as a
disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
Such disagreement is insufficient to establish that a sentence is substantively
unreasonable, especially in light of Chandler’s within-Guidelines-range sentence.
See United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673–74 (8th Cir. 2021) (noting a
sentencing “court has ‘wide latitude’ to assign weight to give factors[ ] and . . . ‘may
give some factors less weight than a defendant prefers or more weight to other
factors, but that alone does not justify reversal’”). Accordingly, the district court did
-4-
not abuse its substantial discretion of imposing a revocation sentence of eight
months.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
______________________________
-5-