United States of America v. Gary Lee Winters

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1026
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gary Lee Winters
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: March 26, 2026
Filed: April 1, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gary Winters appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to drug offenses. He argues the court erred in failing to compel the government
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

to move for a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(b), and that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in failing
to compel the government to move for a third-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, as there is no indication that the government’s reason was based on an
unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Gaye, 902 F.3d 780, 789 (8th Cir.
2018) (a district court may not order the government to file a motion for reduction
under § 3E1.1 unless the government’s refusal was based on unconstitutional motive).
In any event, the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence had
it compelled the government to move for the third-level reduction. See United States
v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 948 (8th Cir. 2019) (any Guidelines miscalculation was
harmless when district court stated it imposed the sentence based on 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and “regardless of the calculation of the sentencing guidelines”).
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing
a substantively unreasonable sentence, as there is no indication that the district court
overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See
United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 2012) (court of appeals reviews
reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d
1167, 1169 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court abuses its discretion when it fails to
consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant
weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but
commits clear error of judgment in weighing those factors).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --