United States of America v. Marquis Hunt

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1621
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Marquis Hunt
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: January 16, 2026
Filed: July 20, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After a jury found Marquis Hunt guilty of four counts of drug trafficking, the
district court1 sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years’
supervised release. Hunt appeals, arguing that the district court imposed a
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 4 --

substantively unreasonable sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
we affirm.
In 2022, the Government charged Hunt and 34 others in a 61-count indictment
for alleged drug-trafficking activity and later filed a superseding indictment as to all
defendants. These indictments charged all defendants with conspiracy to distribute
and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana;
they also contain a series of additional charges against various combinations of
defendants. Subsequently, the district court granted the Government’s motion to
dismiss his conspiracy charge as well as the parties’ joint motion to sever the
remaining charges against him. In August 2024, Hunt was charged alone in a six-
count third superseding indictment with four drug trafficking offenses: possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, and fentanyl, and
two firearm offenses: possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
crime and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Hunt proceeded to trial in
October 2024.
At trial, law enforcement agents testified that after learning that Hunt’s
residence was being used as a “trap house,” a slang term for a place where illicit
drugs are bought, sold, or used, United States v. Perez, No. 24-1286, 2025 WL
943106, at *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2025), they searched it and found drugs and drug
paraphernalia. Agents recovered marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, and
fentanyl, as well as a digital scale and a Taurus 9mm pistol. Additionally, they
located a K2 grow house outside the residence, which was used to make K2 synthetic
marijuana. The jury found Hunt guilty of the four drug trafficking counts; it found
him not guilty of the two firearm counts.
At sentencing, the district court adopted the United States Probation Office’s
Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). The PSR calculated Hunt’s total offense
level as 37 and his criminal history as Category VI, resulting in a United States
Sentencing Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. The district court

-- 2 of 4 --

sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment.2 Hunt argues that the district court
abused its discretion by improperly weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. He contends that he
received a significantly longer sentence than the leaders of the drug conspiracy, who
he claims are more culpable than he was.
We “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under
an abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th
Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citation omitted). 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) “commits a
clear error of judgment in weighing” the appropriate factors. United States v.
McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1126-27 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The district
court “has wide latitude to weigh the section 3553(a) factors in each case and assign
some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.”
United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). A
within-Guidelines range sentence, like Hunt’s sentence here, is presumptively
reasonable. See United States v. Dolehide, 663 F.3d 343, 349 (8th Cir. 2011).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering
and applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Hunt argues that his sentence is
unreasonable because his more culpable co-conspirators received lighter sentences.
As an initial matter, Hunt was not tried or convicted on a conspiracy charge. Instead,
he was tried, convicted, and sentenced for his individual conduct—possessing a
large quantity of controlled substances with intent to distribute. In any event, the
district court noted that Hunt’s relentless criminal history was “‘whol[ly]’ different”
than the criminal histories of his former co-defendants, many of whom had little or
no criminal history. Differences in criminal history constitute a legitimate
sentencing distinction, and “[i]t is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to
2 The district court imposed 360 months on Count 1, 240 months on Count 2,
60 months on Count 3, and 360 months on Count 6, all to run concurrently.

-- 3 of 4 --

impose a sentence that results in a disparity between co-defendants when there are
‘legitimate distinctions’ between” them. United States v. Mohamed, 757 F.3d 757,
762 (8th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Moreover, Hunt’s
disagreement with the weight the district court assigned to particular factors in the
§ 3553(a) analysis does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See Richart, 662
F.3d at 1054 (“Simply because the district court weighed the relevant factors more
heavily than [the defendant] would prefer does not mean the district court abused its
discretion.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing a sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --