United States of America v. Davonte Tamos Wiggins

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2946
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Davonte Tamos Wiggins
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: April 11, 2022
Filed: June 14, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Davonte Wiggins pled guilty to drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The
district court1 imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment.
Wiggins appeals, claiming his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
At the sentencing hearing, Wiggins’ counsel advocated for a 240-month
sentence. The district court subsequently “varied downward and accepted the
recommendation of the defense.” A defendant who contests the reasonableness of
his sentence “cannot complain that the district court gave him exactly what his
lawyer asked.” United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002); see
also United States v. Garcia, 848 F. App’x 680, 681 (8th Cir. 2021) (unpublished
per curiam) (“Because the court imposed the [defendant’s] recommended sentence,
we conclude [his] reasonableness challenge is foreclosed.”). The substantive
reasonableness claim is waived.
Even without that barrier, Wiggins’ arguments are unpersuasive. We review
the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion
standard. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
The district court disclaimed reliance on the career offender guideline because the
otherwise applicable offense level was already higher, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), and
it had no obligation to impose a lower sentence based on a policy disagreement with
the guidelines, United States v. Heim, 941 F.3d 338, 340 (8th Cir. 2019). As for
Wiggins’ challenge to the weight assigned to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, this is
far removed from the “nearly inconceivable” case where a district court would abuse
its discretion by “not varying downward still further.” United States v. Canamore,
916 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Carr, 895
F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018)).
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --