United States v. Deterrius Wilson ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1503
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Deterrius Wilson
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: January 9, 2023
Filed: May 4, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Deterrius Wilson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition,
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He had a state suspended sentence, and because of his federal
charges, his suspended sentence was revoked. The state court sentenced him to 480
months in prison. The district court 1 then sentenced him to a within-Guidelines 120
1
The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
months in prison, with 96 months to run consecutively to his state sentence. The
court also imposed a special condition: that Wilson participate in substance abuse
treatment. Wilson challenges the reasonableness of his sentence and the special
condition. We affirm.
Wilson does not appear to challenge the length of his sentence, only that it
runs partially consecutive to his state sentence. In deciding whether to impose a
concurrent or consecutive sentence, the district court must consider the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b). Plus, Application Note 4(A) to § 5G1.3
instructs the court to consider various factors related to the undischarged sentence,
and any other circumstance relevant to the determination of an appropriate sentence.
U.S.S.G § 5G1.3, cmt. n.4(A). Wilson argues that his sentence is unreasonable
because the district court failed to consider and properly weigh these factors. We
review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (“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.” (citation omitted)).
After hearing argument on whether to run the sentences consecutively or
concurrently, the district court noted that it considered the § 3553(a) factors. See
United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding that there was no
abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a) factors and recognized
its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do so). Although the
court did not recite the Application Note 4(A) factors, the record shows that it
considered them. The court was aware of the type and length of the undischarged
sentence, the time served on the undischarged sentence and the time likely to be
served before release, and the fact that the undischarged sentence was imposed in
state court. See U.S.S.G § 5G1.3, cmt. n.4(A); United States v. Lomeli, 596 F.3d
496, 505 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that the district court’s awareness of the details
involving the state sentence is all that is required under the Guidelines).
-2-
Wilson further argues that the district court did not adequately weigh his
mitigating factors, like his troubled childhood, his lack of familial support, and the
loss of his parents. The court heard testimony from a mitigation expert and told
Wilson that it understood his “childhood was not the best.” Sentencing Tr. 155.
Ultimately, the court reasoned that Wilson should serve some time in addition to his
state sentence. The district court’s decision to give more weight to factors other than
Wilson’s mitigating circumstances was not an abuse of discretion. See United States
v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 774 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that judges have “wide
latitude . . . in weighing relevant factors” (citation omitted)).
We next consider Wilson’s argument that the district court erred in requiring
him to participate in a substance abuse treatment program. Wilson did not object
below, so we review for plain error. United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692, 694 (8th
Cir. 2003).
Wilson argues that the district court failed to “make an individualized inquiry
into the facts and circumstances underlying [his] case and make sufficient findings
on the record so as to ensure that the special condition satisfies the statutory
requirements.” United States v. Sterling, 959 F.3d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation
omitted). Although the court did not make individualized findings, “reversal is not
required . . . if the basis for the imposed condition can be discerned from the record.”
Id. (cleaned up). According to the record, Wilson has had several drug-related
convictions. These convictions indicate that he has continuing problems with
substance abuse related to his criminal activity. Because substance abuse treatment
is supported by the record, the district court did not plainly err.
We affirm Wilson’s sentence.
______________________________
-3-