United States v. Jose Garcia ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-3400
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jose E. Garcia
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska
    ____________
    Submitted: March 13, 2023
    Filed: June 29, 2023
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    In August 2022, Jose E. Garcia pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm
    as a felon in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1
    imposed a 33-month sentence, a downward variance from the United States
    1
    The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
    Judge for the District of Nebraska.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) 51- to 63-month recommended range.
    Garcia appeals, arguing the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
    We review the substantive reasonableness of the district court’s sentence
    “under a ‘deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v. Stephen, 
    984 F.3d 625
    , 632 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Cole, 
    657 F.3d 685
    , 688 (8th
    Cir. 2011)). “A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable
    sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant
    weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but
    commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v.
    Miner, 
    544 F.3d 930
    , 932 (8th Cir. 2008). However, “[t]he district court has wide
    latitude to weigh the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some
    factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United
    States v. Bridges, 
    569 F.3d 374
    , 379 (8th Cir. 2009). When a district court has
    already granted a downward variance, as was the case here, “it is ‘nearly
    inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still
    further.’” United States v. Jackson, 
    909 F.3d 922
    , 925 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting
    United States v. Lundstrom, 
    880 F.3d 423
    , 446 (8th Cir. 2018)).
    No abuse of discretion occurred here. The district court clearly and
    adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and gave significant weight to
    mitigating facts, such as Garcia’s young age during parts of his criminal history and
    his commendable post-offense conduct, in deciding to vary downward 18 months
    below the recommended range. The district court also appropriately considered
    aggravating details in determining Garcia’s sentence, including the lengthiness of
    his criminal history and his probationary status at the time of his offense.
    Garcia nonetheless faults the district court for what he characterizes as having
    abused its discretion when weighing the § 3553(a) factors by overemphasizing
    aggravating details and underemphasizing mitigating details. We reject Garcia’s
    argument. While the district court weighed the factors differently than Garcia
    preferred, “that alone does not justify reversal.” United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d
    -2-
    665, 673–74 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Moua, 
    895 F.3d 556
    , 560 (8th
    Cir. 2018)); see also United States v. Harrell, 
    982 F.3d 1137
    , 1141 (8th Cir. 2020)
    (concluding no abuse of discretion where the district court weighed mitigating
    factors differently than the defendant did).2 We conclude Garcia’s 33-month
    sentence is substantively reasonable as the district court carefully considered the
    § 3553(a) factors and acted within its broad discretion in weighing both mitigating
    and aggravating factors in coming to its decision.
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    2
    Garcia also faults the district court for relying on the calculated base offense
    level but does not assert a procedural argument. He simply highlights his
    disagreement with the Guidelines consideration of large-capacity magazines in its
    recommended base offense level.               See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual
    § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2021). Under our precedent, district courts
    may, based on policy grounds, disregard the Guidelines recommendations involving
    the capacity of firearms, but this decision is discretionary. See United States v.
    Barron, 
    557 F.3d 866
    , 871 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its
    discretion by considering the large-capacity magazine involved in Garcia’s offense
    and its effect on Garcia’s base offense level.
    -3-