United States of America v. Stephen W. Lundemo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1912
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Stephen W. Lundemo
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: January 9, 2023
Filed: February 2, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Stephen W. Lundemo pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Based on a total
offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of III, the district court1 calculated
1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
Lundemo’s United States Sentencing Guidelines range to be 46 to 57 months’
imprisonment. At the Government’s recommendation, the district court varied
upward and ultimately sentenced Lundemo to 108 months’ imprisonment, followed
by 3 years of supervised release. Lundemo appeals his sentence, arguing (1) that the
district court committed procedural error by failing to explain his sentence and (2)
that his sentence is otherwise substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
We first address whether the district court committed procedural error by
failing to explain Lundemo’s sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,
461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“We ‘must first ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error.’” (citation omitted)). “Procedural errors
include . . . failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an
explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Ross, 29
F.4th 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2022). Because Lundemo failed “to object at sentencing
to an alleged procedural error, we apply plain error review.” Id.; see also United
States v. Isler, 983 F.3d 335, 341 (8th Cir. 2020) (“Under plain error review, the
defendant must show: (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) that affects substantial
rights.” (citation omitted)). “Although a district court must explain its sentence in a
manner providing for meaningful appellate review, it is not required to provide an
extensive justification for its sentencing determination.” Ross, 29 F.4th at 1007
(citation omitted).
Here, the district court discussed multiple 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors in depth, particularly those upon which it relied to vary upward. See R. Doc.
39, at 30-32. Lundemo’s arguments regarding the district court’s purported failure
to explain its upward variance based upon Lundemo’s criminal history are misplaced
because the authority upon which he relies concerns criminal history departures, not
§ 3553(a) variances. See United States v. Chase, 560 F.3d 828, 830 (8th Cir. 2009)
(“Variances do differ from departures.”). And while Lundemo contends that the
district court did not discuss his mitigating circumstances—namely, his mental
health and drug use—the district court in fact discussed these circumstances at length

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
and incorporated them into its § 3553(a) analysis. See, e.g., R. Doc. 39, at 31 (“So
his history and characteristics regarding his . . . inability to stay on medication,
especially when he elects to use illegal drugs, warrants a sentence of 108 months.”);
R. Doc. 39, at 31-32 (“As I mentioned, Mr. Lundemo, it’s not rare that criminal
defendants have mental health conditions that range [from] schizophrenia, bipolar,
depression, anxiety, anger control issues. But somehow you’ve got to be able to
manage those.”). Accordingly, the district court did not commit procedural error,
much less plainly so, by failing to explain Lundemo’s sentence.
Next, we consider the substantive reasonableness of Lundemo’s sentence.
Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461. This Court “review[s] the substantive reasonableness of
a sentence for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Red Cloud, 966 F.3d 886,
888 (8th Cir. 2020). We are “cognizant that it will be the unusual case when we
reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable
Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Sayles, 754
F.3d 564, 567 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Lundemo relies largely on the same
arguments as above, contending that the district court did not give adequate weight
to his mitigating factors and gave improper weight to the need to protect the public,
based on the nature of the offense and Lundemo’s criminal history. See Feemster,
572 F.3d at 461 (“A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) ‘fails to consider
a relevant factor that should have received significant weight’; (2) ‘gives significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor’; or (3) ‘considers only the appropriate
factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.’” (citation
omitted)). However, “[d]istrict courts are afforded ‘wide latitude’ to weigh the
relevant sentencing factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than
others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United States v. McDaniels, 19
F.4th 1065, 1067 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Lundemo’s
arguments amount to a mere disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the
§ 3553(a) factors, which “does not alone justify reversal.” Id. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in crafting Lundemo’s sentence.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --