United States of America v. Vincent Neil Strauser

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2361
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Vincent Neil Strauser
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: October 20, 2025
Filed: January 26, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Vincent Neil Strauser pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
manufacture a controlled substance following a conviction for a prior serious drug
felony, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, 851, and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). At his

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
initial sentencing hearing, the district court1 determined that Strauser was a career
offender and therefore subject to a sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the
district court sentenced Strauser to 200 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1(a). On appeal, we found that Strauser did not qualify as a career offender
and reversed and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Strauser, No. 23-
2780, 2024 WL 1714254 (8th Cir. Apr. 22, 2024) (per curiam). At resentencing, the
district court determined that Strauser was subject to an advisory sentencing
guidelines range of 161 to 192 months’ imprisonment. The district court stated that
it intended to give Strauser a sentence that was “less than what [it] imposed last time
but not substantially less because of all the 3553(a) factors and particularly the
defendant’s very serious criminal history and his poor performance under
supervision.” Thus, it intended to impose a sentence “toward the middle of the
guideline range.” The district court then stated its intent to impose a sentence of 193
months’ imprisonment—which would have constituted an upward variance of one
month. The Government asked for clarification. The district court stated that it
“actually” meant to impose “a 192 [month] sentence, not above that range.” The
district court imposed a sentence of 192 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Strauser argues that the district court committed procedural error
by failing to provide an adequate explanation for its sentence because it stated that
it intended to impose a sentence towards the middle of the guidelines range but
actually imposed a sentence at the top of the guidelines range. “Procedural error
includes failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain
the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the
Guidelines range.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (citation modified). Because Strauser did not raise this alleged procedural
error to the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Runs Against,
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
66 F.4th 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2023). Thus, to prevail, Strauser must show that the
district court committed a plain error that affects his substantial rights and “seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735-36 (1993) (citation modified). “To show that an
error affected his substantial rights, he must convince us that a reasonable probability
exists that he would have received a more favorable sentence but for the error.” Runs
Against, 66 F.4th at 725.
Strauser fails to convince us that a reasonable probability exists that he would
have received a more favorable sentence but for the district court’s alleged error.
First, a 192-month sentence is in accord with the district court’s initial explanation
that it intended to impose a sentence that was “less . . . but not substantially less”
than its previous sentence of 200 months. Second, after the district court stated its
intent to impose a sentence of 193 months, the Government asked the district court
for clarification. The Government noted that a sentence of 193 months’
imprisonment would constitute an upward variance. The district court
acknowledged the guidelines range and clarified that it intended to give a sentence
of 192 months, “not above that range.” “We are therefore convinced that the district
court thought the sentence it chose was appropriate,” regardless of its earlier
statement about intending to sentence Strauser to a middle-of-the-range term. See
Runs Against, 66 F.4th at 725 (citation modified).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --