United States of America v. Theodore John Sartori, Sr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3366
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Theodore John Sartori, Sr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 12, 2026
Filed: May 18, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Theodore Sartori appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district
court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a sex offense. On appeal, he challenges the
1The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

substantive reasonableness of the sentence and argues the court improperly relied on,
and gave too much weight to, an improper factor by punishing him for objections and
statements by defense counsel.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Sartori. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461
(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures no
significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of
sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard). The court committed no error in
considering, but ultimately disagreeing with, defense counsel’s arguments; and the
record contradicts Sartori’s contention that his sentence was based on counsel’s
objections or statements. See Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 501 (2022)
(it is well established that district court must generally consider parties’ nonfrivolous
arguments but is not required to be persuaded by them); see also United States v.
Mays, 993 F.3d 607, 620 (8th Cir. 2021) (rejecting argument that district court’s
comments regarding defendant’s lack of remorse showed court relied on erroneous
facts; court did not commit error, much less plain error, as record as whole showed
defendant misinterpreted court’s statements). Further, the court properly considered
the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant
factors or in varying upward based exclusively on the nature, severity, and duration
of the offense. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (abuse of discretion occurs when court
gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, fails to consider relevant
factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); see also
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (this court must give due deference to
district court’s decision that sentencing factors justify variance).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --