United States of America v. Armani Eugene Gates, also known as OMB74, also known as 74

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1758
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Armani Eugene Gates, also known as OMB74, also known as 74
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa
____________
Submitted: April 18, 2025
Filed: August 7, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Armani Gates pled guilty to six separate fentanyl- and firearm-related
offenses. The district court1 calculated his advisory Guidelines range as 262 to 327
months of imprisonment, plus a 60-month consecutive mandatory term under 18
1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
U.S.C. § 924(c), and sentenced him to a total of 276 months of imprisonment. Gates
appeals, arguing his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors such as his
age, acceptance of responsibility, need for drug treatment, and family support.
We review the substantive reasonableness of Gates’s sentence for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Holmes, 87 F.4th 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2023). Here,
the district court considered all the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
specifically discussed Gates’s youth, immaturity, and strong family support as well
as the seriousness of his crimes, the connection between the fentanyl and firearms,
the danger of fentanyl, and his leadership role in a gang. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining the district court
need not recite all the § 3553(a) factors if the record shows it considered them). The
district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing the factors differently than
Gates would have preferred or by imposing a sentence below the advisory
Guidelines range. See Holmes, 87 F.4th at 916–17 (explaining the “mere
dissatisfaction” in the weight given to mitigating circumstances “does not indicate
that the district court abused its considerable discretion in weighing the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors” and it would be “the unusual case” to reverse a sentence below
the applicable Guidelines range as substantively unreasonable (quoting Feemster,
572 F.3d at 464)). The 276-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --