Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
24-2946•United States of America v. Shaquan Willis
24-2946Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit21.08.2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1834
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Shaquan Willis
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: August 4, 2026
Filed: August 7, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Shaquan Willis pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court1 sentenced him to 96 months
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
in prison followed by 3 years of supervised release. For reversal, Willis argues that
the district court, by varying upward from the United States Sentencing Guidelines
advisory sentencing range of 57-71 months, gave undue weight to factors already
accounted for in the calculation of the Guidelines range and imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence.
Following our review of the proceedings, we find no indication that the district
court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor, committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors,
or otherwise abused its discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court noted that the Guidelines range
was an important factor, but that the appropriate sentence was the upward variance
requested by the government in light of the defendant’s history and characteristics,
and the fact that he had not been deterred by prior prison terms. Defendant’s
disagreement with how the district court weighed the relevant sentencing factors does
not justify reversal. See United States v. Haskins, 101 F.4th 997, 999-1000 (8th Cir.
2024). We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.