United States of America v. Christopher Martez Hoover

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2985
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Christopher Martez Hoover
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: April 13, 2026
Filed: July 23, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Martez Hoover pleaded guilty to one count of being a prohibited
person in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and (g)(3),

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
and § 924(a)(8). The district court1 imposed a 93-month term of imprisonment.
Hoover appeals, arguing his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
I.
Over the course of approximately five weeks in 2023, Ladonna Henderson
bought eight firearms from retail stores. On the ATF Firearms Transaction Record
forms, she falsely stated that she was the actual purchaser. In fact, Hoover was the
actual purchaser of each firearm. A few days later, Henderson attempted to buy a
ninth gun, but the store employee declined to sell it to her after noticing that Hoover
was the one handling the gun and asking the questions about it. Henderson later told
law enforcement that Hoover asked her to purchase the firearms and that he would
resell them for money. Four of the purchased firearms were later recovered by law
enforcement, each one in the possession of a person prohibited from possessing
firearms.
Three days after the attempted firearm purchase, law enforcement executed a
search warrant at Henderson’s residence—where Hoover frequently stayed
overnight—and found a tenth firearm. They also found cocaine, marijuana, and K2.
Two months after the search, Hoover was pulled over in a traffic stop, and officers
found another firearm underneath the driver’s seat.
Hoover was indicted on one count of being a prohibited person in possession
of a firearm. He pleaded guilty, and a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) was
prepared. Both Hoover and the government filed objections to the calculation of the
advisory Guidelines range as recommended in the PSR. Before sentencing, however,
the parties reached an agreement: They withdrew their objections, stipulated to the
applicable Guidelines range, and agreed to argue for a sentence within that range.
The district court accepted the agreement, resulting in a range of 84 to 105 months.
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
The court imposed a sentence of 93 months of imprisonment and 3 years of
supervised release.
II.
On appeal, Hoover asserts his 93-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. “We review challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Black, 129 F.4th 508, 513 (8th Cir. 2025)
(citing United States v. Maluoth, 121 F.4th 1158, 1163 (8th Cir. 2024)). “A district
court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should
have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those
factors commits a clear error of judgment.” Id. (quoting United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)).
According to Hoover, the district court failed to give sufficient consideration
to a key reason he possessed the firearms: He had recently been shot, remained in
danger, and needed to protect himself and his family. Hoover also contends the court
should have given more weight to his difficult childhood and his proven ability,
despite his criminal history, “to comport his behavior to what is expected of him.”
The district court considered each of these relevant factors. The court
addressed the shooting and Hoover’s need for protection but, in context, did not view
them as mitigating factors. Even if Hoover needed to protect himself, the court noted,
he had also “supplied” others with firearms, at least some of whom were prohibited
from lawfully possessing firearms themselves. And he recruited Henderson to make
the straw purchases, which in turn exposed her to criminal liability. Moreover, when
he spoke with law enforcement, Hoover did not explain that he needed protection.
Instead, he lied and said he was not involved in purchasing firearms at all. As to his
upbringing, the district court agreed that it was “dysfunctional and difficult.” The
court also recognized Hoover had shown he could be a law-abiding citizen. The court
then weighed these factors, among others, against the serious nature of the offense

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
conduct and imposed a sentence in the middle of the agreed-upon range. On this
record, we discern no abuse of discretion.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --