United States of America v. Antonio Dontez Hoffman, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2938
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Antonio Dontez Hoffman, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: December 15, 2025
Filed: July 17, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, L.R. SMITH, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Dontez Hoffman and a co-conspirator burglarized the home of a
family friend during the friend’s funeral, stealing many firearms and ammunition,
including assault rifles with extended magazines. They then sold many of these guns
on the black market. Hoffman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

-- 1 of 4 --

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His criminal history includes
convictions for possessing a stolen pistol and strangling the mother of his child.
At sentencing, the district court1 determined that Hoffman’s advisory
guidelines sentencing range is 100 to 125 months imprisonment. Hoffman requested
a downward departure from the Guidelines range, arguing his criminal history is
overrepresented because it is recent and occurred over a short period, and he has an
“extraordinary physical impairment” -- he has been diagnosed with “left ventricular
non-compaction” and will need a heart transplant in the next five to eight years. See
USSG §§ 4A1.3(b), 5H1.4 (2023).
The district court explicitly considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) and considered mitigating factors noted by Hoffman, including his age
(21), tumultuous upbringing, support from friends and family, and recent trauma from
the death of his child. The court disagreed with Hoffman’s assertion that many of his
criminal history offenses occurred after the assault conduct at issue; in particular, he
strangled the mother of his child the month before the instant offense, though it was
not charged until after this offense had occurred. The district court also considered
Hoffman’s need for treatment of his heart condition a mitigating factor but found that
it is treatable and does not rise to the level of an extraordinary physical impairment.
The court concluded that the severity of Hoffman’s offense conduct combined with
his criminal history warranted a within-Guidelines-range sentence, denied the
requested downward departure, and sentenced Hoffman to 110 months imprisonment.
Hoffman appeals, arguing the district court erred in denying his downward departure
request and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm.
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 4 --

1. “A district court’s decision to deny a downward departure is unreviewable
unless the district court had an unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought that
it was without authority to grant the departure.” United States v.
Angeles-Moctezuma, 927 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). There is no
claim of (and no basis to claim) an unconstitutional motive in this case. The court’s
careful consideration of Hoffman’s reasons for requesting a downward departure
made it clear the court understood it was not without authority to grant the request.
Because the district court was aware of its authority and Hoffman does not argue an
unconstitutional motive, this argument is unreviewable on appeal.
2. Hoffman argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because, in
deciding to impose a within-Guidelines-range sentence, the court failed to give proper
weight to the above-described mitigating factors, while giving too much weight to the
nature of the offense conduct and his criminal history. We review the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “[I]t will be the unusual case when we
reverse a district court sentence -- whether within, above, or below the applicable
Guidelines range -- as substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572
F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). “When a sentence is within the advisory
guidelines range, we presume that it is reasonable.” United States v. Maati, 144 F.4th
1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2025) (citations omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors differently than Hoffman preferred. “The district court has wide
latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater
weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United States v. Bridges,
569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009). Given the severity of the offense conduct --
burglarizing a friend’s home during her funeral and then selling stolen assault rifles
on the black market -- together with a criminal history that includes violent and
firearm offenses as a young adult, Hoffman does not convince us, as he failed to
-3-

-- 3 of 4 --

convince the district court, that he warranted a below-Guidelines-range sentence.
Accordingly, his 110-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-4-

-- 4 of 4 --