United States of America v. Randy Christopher Crook

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3537
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Randy Christopher Crook
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas
____________
Submitted: September 23, 2024
Filed: December 6, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Randy Crook pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. See
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court1 adopted the presentence
investigation report as modified and calculated an advisory United States Sentencing
1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., then Chief Judge, now United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Guidelines Manual (Guidelines) range of 92 to 115 months of imprisonment. Crook
requested both a downward departure based on his physical condition under
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 and a downward variance for his drug addiction and physical
condition. The district court denied both the departure and variance and imposed a
within-Guidelines sentence of 108 months of imprisonment, followed by a three-
year term of supervised release. Crook challenges the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence by arguing the district court abused its discretion by not granting either
the downward departure or variance. We affirm.
We first consider Crook’s argument that the district court erred by refusing to
grant a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 because of his physical
condition. Crook maintains a downward departure was warranted because he
suffered injuries in a past motorcycle accident and has high blood pressure.
“However, a sentencing court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward is not
generally reviewable on appeal,” unless there is evidence of an unconstitutional
motive or lack of awareness of the authority to grant the departure. United States v.
Toothman, 543 F.3d 967, 971 (8th Cir. 2008). Because Crook does not allege an
unconstitutional motive or lack of authority to grant the departure, we decline to
review the district court’s denial of any departure.
We next consider Crook’s argument the district court abused its discretion by
not granting a downward variance due to his substance abuse issues and physical
condition. “A sentence which falls within the guideline range is presumed to be
reasonable.” United States v. Cosen, 965 F.3d 929, 932 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting
United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014)). The defendant has
the burden to rebut this presumption and to show the sentence should be reduced.
See id. “[D]istrict courts are allowed wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in
each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an
appropriate sentence.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Callaway, 762 F.3d at
760).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Crook fails to rebut the presumption that the district court’s within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court considered Crook’s history
of drug addiction, his willingness to seek rehabilitation, and even “applaud[ed]” the
changes he made to better his life. However, the district court also weighed “the
sheer volume” of crimes Crook had previously committed. A district court does not
abuse its discretion when it weighs the relevant factors differently than the defendant
would prefer. See United States v. Nguyen, 829 F.3d 907, 926 (8th Cir. 2016). Here,
the district court “considered these mitigating and aggravating factors, the advisory
guidelines, and the statutory sentencing factors” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and
“declined to vary upward to the statutory maximum, as the government requested,
or downward, as [Crook] requested.” See Cosen, 965 F.3d at 932. The district court
concluded a sentence of 108 months of imprisonment was warranted because of
Crook’s extensive criminal history. Based on the record, we conclude that Crook
has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness accorded to his sentence. The
district court did not abuse its discretion.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --