United States of America v. Edward Brent Wonnacott

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3275
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Edward Brent Wonnacott
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: March 13, 2026
Filed: March 18, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Edward Wonnacott appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district
court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense. He argues the
1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence after giving too much weight
to its past sentencing practices rather than the available Judicial Sentencing
Information (JSIN) data, and after concluding he was likely to recidivate despite
being a first-time offender.
After careful review, we conclude that Wonnacott’s sentence was not
substantively unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked
a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United
States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (court of appeals reviews
reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d
1167, 1169 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court abuses its discretion when it fails to
consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant
weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but
commits clear error of judgment in weighing those factors). The court considered the
JSIN statistics, but did not err in giving more weight to its past sentencing practices
and Wonnacott’s individual circumstances in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir.
2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court made individualized assessment
based on facts presented); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc) (appellate court must give due deference to district court’s
determination that § 3553(a) factors justify variance); see also United States v. Hill,
8 F.4th 757, 761 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (rejecting defendant’s argument that his
sentence was higher than national average, as those statistics provide no basis to
determine which defendants received appropriate sentence).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --