The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-1432•United States of America v. Deiago Davis
17-1432Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJul 31, 2018
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1127
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Deiago Davis
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: May 14, 2018
Filed: July 10, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.1
____________
PER CURIAM.
This case returns to us after resentencing. In the previous appeal, we
determined that the government had failed to prove facts sufficient to enhance Deiago
This opinion is filed by Judge Benton and Judge Stras pursuant to 8th Cir.1
Rule 47E.
-- 1 of 2 --
Davis’s sentence under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A). United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d
359, 365 (8th Cir. 2016). On remand, the government chose not to present additional
evidence to support the enhancement, but the district court imposed the same 46-2
month sentence. Davis appeals.
With the enhancement, Davis’s Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months; without
it, his range was 37 to 46 months. Davis argues that the district court gave too little
consideration to the fact that his Guidelines range was lower on remand, and thus
abused its discretion by imposing a top-of-the-range sentence. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). At
resentencing, the district court adopted the uncontested Guidelines range, and then
provided a detailed explanation for its sentencing decision. The court cited Davis’s
criminal record, which is extensive despite his youth, and explained that Davis’s
underlying conviction for criminal contempt evinced a disrespect for the law. The
court also expressed the view that Davis was at a high risk to reoffend. We conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors.
We affirm.
______________________________
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern2
District of Iowa.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.