United States of America v. Todd Norman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3372
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Todd Norman
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: June 10, 2024
Filed: June 28, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Todd Norman pled guilty to possession of fentanyl with intent to deliver, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c). The district court1 sentenced
Norman as a career offender under § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Guidelines (“Guidelines”). Norman appeals both his designation as a career
offender and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
Norman’s Presentence Investigation Report concluded that he satisfied the
career offender criteria under § 4B1.1 of the Guidelines based on his two prior
controlled substance offenses. Norman objected, arguing that his prior Arkansas
convictions for delivery of methamphetamine and possession with the purpose to
deliver cocaine were not qualifying offenses because Arkansas law included certain
isomers in the definitions of cocaine and methamphetamine that rendered them
overbroad as compared to federal law. Norman conceded, however, that this Court’s
decision in United States v. Henderson, 11 F.4th 713 (8th Cir. 2021), foreclosed his
argument. The district court overruled Norman’s objection and imposed a below-
Guidelines sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment after considering the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
“We review the career offender designation de novo.” United States v.
Jefferson, 975 F.3d 700, 706 (8th Cir. 2020). A defendant qualifies as a career
offender under the Guidelines if he “has at least two prior felony convictions of
either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).
In Henderson, the Court noted that § 4B1.2(b) includes “an offense under federal or
state law” and it contains “no requirement that the particular substance underlying
the state offense is also controlled under a distinct federal law.” 11 F.4th at 718.
Because Norman has two qualifying convictions, the district court did not err by
classifying Norman as a career offender under the Guidelines. See id. at 718-19.
We review a defendant’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Jones, 71 F.4th 1083, 1086 (8th
Cir. 2023). “When a district court varies downward and sentences below a
presumptively reasonable Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court
abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.” United States v.
Canamore, 916 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (quotation omitted).
Norman acknowledges that the district court considered the § 3553(a) sentencing

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
factors but challenges the court’s weighing of those factors. Because it is within a
sentencing court’s wide discretion to decide the appropriate weight to give the
sentencing factors, a defendant’s objection to the weight given by the district court
is insufficient to justify reversal. See United States v. Moua, 895 F.3d 556, 560 (8th
Cir. 2018) (per curiam). We find no abuse of the district court’s sentencing
discretion. The below-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --