United States of America v. Quentin Joel Nighttraveller

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1567
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Quentin Joel Nighttraveller
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2026
Filed: June 5, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Quentin Joel Nighttraveller pleaded guilty to transporting a minor with intent
to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Varying
upward, the district court1 sentenced him to 168 months in prison. He appeals,
1 The Honorable Stephen J. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
arguing that the length of his sentence is substantively unreasonable and that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing. Having jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Nighttraveller, a commercial truck driver, left Canada for the United States on
a work trip. He brought along a 14-year-old female relative. On May 7, 2024, they
stopped at a truck stop in Minnesota. That night, Nighttraveller gave her alcohol
and sexually assaulted her several times. The next morning, they traveled to Iowa,
eventually parking at the edge of a truck stop. That evening, Nighttraveller tried to
assault her again. Resisting, she tried to call her mother on his phone, but the call
disconnected. She escaped an hour later, crying, running barefoot and in pajamas
from the truck into a store, a thousand miles from home. She called and talked with
her mother. Nighttraveller had driven away. On the afternoon of May 9, police
located him in Nebraska. After Miranda warnings, he admitted committing several
types of sex acts; offering money in exchange for her silence; and struggling with
her when she tried to call her mother. A sexual-assault examination found physical
injuries to the victim and, on her buttocks, DNA matching Nighttraveller’s. On his
phone were close-up images of her body and searches for adult pornography.
The Presentence Investigation Report calculated a guideline range of 108–135
months—adjusted to 120–135 months due to the 10-year minimum sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). The Government requested a sentence within the range.
Nighttraveller sought a 120-month sentence, emphasizing that it would be in the
middle of the guideline range, if not for the statutory minimum. The district court
varied upward, imposing a 168-month sentence.
I.
This court reviews a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
41 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable
sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing them. United States v. Feemster, 572
F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). District courts must impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes and factors
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “It will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court
sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—as
substantively unreasonable.” Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464. If a sentence is outside the
range, this court “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify
the extent of the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
The district court here imposed the sentence after making an individualized
assessment based on the record and the § 3553(a) factors. The district court cited
the “horrific” trauma of a relative’s sexual assault, the inadequacy of the guidelines
range to reflect its severity, and the need to promote respect for the law and provide
a just punishment. The court noted that the victim’s selective mutism—an anxiety
disorder that causes difficulty speaking in stressful situations—increased her
vulnerability, because Nighttraveller knew it would inhibit her resistance and any
later communications about the sexual assault.
Nighttraveller believes that the district court did not give enough weight to
the factors his counsel highlighted. To the contrary, the district court considered his
immediate confession and guilty plea (sparing the victim from testifying); no
meaningful criminal history; his age; and some family support (which included
letters of support from two of his daughters). See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d
834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding a sentence where the district court made an
individualized assessment of the facts and addressed the defendant’s proffered
information in considering the § 3553(a) factors). A district court has “wide
latitude” in weighing the § 3553(a) factors and “may give some factors less weight
than a defendant prefers” without abusing its discretion. United States v. Anderson,
618 F.3d 873, 883 (8th Cir. 2010). The sentence imposed was not substantively
unreasonable.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
II.
Nighttraveller asserts that his counsel was ineffective by not contesting the
victim’s allegation of penile penetrations and not introducing evidence that he had
erectile dysfunction—which he believes would have affected the sentence. See
generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984) (recognizing
ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis to overturn a conviction when counsel’s
performance is objectively unreasonable and prejudices the outcome of the case);
Lafler v. Cooper, 556 U.S. 156, 165 (2012) (recognizing a right to effective counsel,
subject to the Strickland test, during sentencing).
Ineffective assistance claims are generally reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
not on direct appeal, because they “usually involve facts outside of the existing
record.” United States v. Adkins, 636 F.3d 432, 434 (8th Cir. 2011). This court
addresses ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal only in “exceptional
circumstances”—where the record is fully developed, where the ineffectiveness is
readily apparent, or where delay causes a plain miscarriage of justice. United States
v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2006).
No exceptional circumstance exists here. Nighttraveller’s claim depends on
assertions, first made on appeal, about his discussions with counsel and the decisions
they made. These involve facts outside of the existing record; ineffectiveness is not
readily apparent; and any delay does not amount to a plain miscarriage of justice.
This court declines to address the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct
review.
* * * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --