United States of America v. Antonio Hernandez, also known as Criminal

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2553
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Antonio Hernandez, also known as Criminal
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: April 11, 2023
Filed: June 30, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Hernandez pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with the
intent to distribute and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
crime. As a category VI offender, Hernandez’s Guidelines range for the illegal drug
offense was 360 months’ to life imprisonment, but because this range exceeded the
statutory maximum for the offense, the Guidelines range became 240 months’

-- 1 of 4 --

imprisonment. The Guidelines range for the illegal firearm offense was 60 months’
imprisonment, the statutory minimum. Hernandez sought a total sentence of 240
months’ imprisonment. The district court1 instead sentenced Hernandez to a total of
330 months’ imprisonment. Specifically, the court imposed 240 months for the drug
offense and 90 months for the firearm offense. The court ordered the sentences to run
consecutively.
Hernandez challenges the substantive reasonableness of the district court’s
ultimate sentence. He argues that the district court erred by not fully taking into
account (1) the particular facts of his case, (2) his age, and (3) the statutory
requirement that a sentence be no greater than necessary. He contends that the court
should have varied downwards to 240 months’ imprisonment total. We affirm.
“We review the denial of a motion for downward variance by reviewing the
sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
United States v. Angeles-Moctezuma, 927 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2019). “An abuse
of discretion is (1) failing to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight; (2) giving significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor;
or (3) considering only the appropriate factors but in weighing them, committing a
clear error of judgment.” United States v. Stoner, 795 F.3d 883, 884 (8th Cir. 2015).
We construe Hernandez’s argument as alleging that the district court abused
its discretion by “committing a clear error of judgment” in weighing the sentencing
factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. In essence, “[Hernandez] simply disagrees
with the district court’s weighing of the relevant factors.” United States v. Corey, 36
F.4th 819, 823 (8th Cir. 2022); see also id. at 823–24 (holding sentence of 295
months’ imprisonment substantively reasonable despite defendant’s arguments that
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 4 --

“his advanced age, mental and physical health problems, status as a first-time
nonviolent offender, and cooperation with police in conducting controlled buys”
warranted a lighter sentence). “Simply because the district court weighed relevant
factors . . . more heavily than [Hernandez] would prefer does not mean the district
court abused its discretion.” United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir.
2011).
The district court gave careful attention to the specifics of Hernandez’s case.
The court highlighted the drug quantity, noting that Hernandez was “accountable for
30 kilograms of a substance containing meth,” which the court characterized as “a
huge amount of methamphetamine.” R. Doc. 48, at 45:2–3. The court also noted that
he was “dealing drugs [in] prison.” Id. at 45:8–9. It found that this fact completely
negated Hernandez’s contention that he had functioned as a kind of “mentor” while
incarcerated. Id. at 45:15–24. The court also took into account Hernandez’s statement
that he would “[s]hoot it out with police” if they ever tried to arrest him in the future.
Id. at 47:12. And, the court provided an extensive analysis of Hernandez’s “mitigating
circumstances.” Id. at 52:1–53:24.
Additionally, the district court expressly acknowledged its “require[ment] to
impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to fulfill the
purposes and goals of federal sentencing.” Id. at 26:7. The court also expressly
considered Hernandez’s age. In short, the district court’s sentencing statements
demonstrate a thorough understanding of the specifics of Hernandez’s case and
provide solid justification for an upward variance and consecutive sentence. See id.
at 55:19–22 (describing Hernandez as having a “complete disrespect for the law” and
wondering aloud “if there is any sentence of incarceration that will deter [him]”).
Our review of the district court’s sentencing rationale showed that it properly
considered the § 3553(a) factors and then imposed a sentence that was well within its
broad discretion—an exercise of discretion that we review deferentially. See
-3-

-- 3 of 4 --

Angeles-Moctezuma, 927 F.3d at 1037. We conclude that Hernandez’s sentence is
substantively reasonable.
We affirm.
______________________________
-4-

-- 4 of 4 --