United States of America v. Zachery Thrice Green, also known as Zachary Thrice Green

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3590
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Zachery Thrice Green, also known as Zachary Thrice Green
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: September 23, 2024
Filed: October 23, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Zachery Thrice Green pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). His draft Presentence Report had a
Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months in prison. But at sentencing, the district court
found that a prior conviction did not qualify as a predicate felony under § 4B1.2 and
that a criminal history enhancement was improper under the recently revised

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Guidelines. His corrected Guidelines range was 37 to 46 months in prison. The
district court1 sentenced him to 96 months in prison and three years of supervised
release. Green argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
Green says that the district court abused its discretion by varying up to a 96-
month sentence, claiming that the court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating
factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
He claims he deserved a lower sentence because of his difficult childhood in the
foster care system, exposure to drugs at a young age, lack of education, and mental
health disorders, as well as the fact that he did not brandish the gun. But the district
court discussed these mitigating circumstances and weighed them against the
aggravating ones: he had stolen the gun, he barged into an apartment—likely with
the gun—searching for a woman at night, he followed a woman in a car for
approximately 20 minutes late at night with the gun, he originally denied having a
gun to police, and he committed a brutal jailhouse battery less than two years before.
That the district court weighed the seriousness of the offense, deterrence, and public
safety more heavily than Green’s mitigating factors does not render his sentence
substantively unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)–(C) (factors to be
considered in imposing sentence); United States v. Ross, 29 F.4th 1003, 1009 (8th
Cir. 2022) (“The district court has ‘wide latitude’ in weighing the § 3553(a) factors
and ‘may give some factors less weight than a defendant prefers or more weight to
the other factors, but that alone does not justify reversal.’” (citation omitted)).
Green also complains that the district court abused its discretion by imposing
a prison term above the draft PSR’s Guidelines range, in effect negating his winning
arguments at sentencing. But after sustaining Green’s objections, the district court
used the correct Guidelines range as “the starting point” that “anchor[ed] the court’s
discretion.” United States v. Shaw, 104 F.4th 691, 694 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 204 (2016)). And we have already
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
said that the district court did not abuse its discretion by varying from the Guidelines
range.
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --