United States of America v. Jermaine Hester

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2405
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jermaine Hester
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta
____________
Submitted: August 18, 2026
Filed: August 21, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, KOBES, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jermaine Hester appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. He argues that his sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable.
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
sentencing Hester. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (in reviewing imposition of sentence, appellate court first ensures there was
no significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness under
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). We reject his claims of procedural error.
Any error in the district court’s consideration of the testimony of Hester’s wife was
invited, as Hester agreed with the court’s statement as to the scope of allowable
testimony. See United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2014)
(erroneous ruling generally does not constitute reversible error when it is invited by
same party who seeks on appeal to have ruling overturned). The district court did not
err in considering unobjected-to statements in the presentence report (PSR)
concerning gun-related charges against Hester and drawing reasonable inferences
about the revocation of his probation. See United States v. Harrell, 982 F.3d 1137,
1140 (8th Cir. 2020) (in selecting sentence, district court may rely on undisputed
factual allegations in PSR and to some extent on its own judicial experience; district
court may not engage in speculation or draw inferences unsupported by record). We
reject Hester’s argument that the court failed to consider the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities, because it is clear from the record that the court
was aware of and considered the relevant factors. See United States v. Clayton, 828
F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court need not categorically rehearse each 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor as long as it is clear they were considered).
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively
unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in section
3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at
461-62 (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives
significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment
in weighing appropriate factors). Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --