United States of America v. Lannie Everett Ross

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2232
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lannie Everett Ross
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: November 17, 2023
Filed: March 5, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lannie Everett Ross pleaded guilty to two counts related to distribution of
explosive materials and possession of firearms. The district court1 sentenced him to
37 months of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and 3 years of
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
supervised release. He appeals, arguing his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I.
In 2020, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) were alerted to a foam cooler, containing materials used to make
improvised explosive devices, found at a construction business in Des Moines, Iowa.
At the time, Ross was a subcontractor for the business. According to employees,
Ross brought the cooler into the construction shop and demonstrated how to
assemble and light the explosives. Employees also told ATF agents that they had
seen about 50 pounds of explosive flash powder in Ross’s van four months earlier,
that Ross had commented that he knew how to make military-grade explosive
devices, and that Ross used methamphetamine. Agents also interviewed Ross’s
landlord, who told them that Ross was struggling after a recent divorce and had
threatened to harm his ex-wife’s new boyfriend.
ATF agents returned to the same construction shop in May 2022 to investigate
an unrelated incident, when they again discovered materials used to make
explosives. They later learned that it was Ross who brought the materials to the shop
for the employees to make “firecrackers.” Agents then obtained a search warrant for
Ross’s residence, a duplex he shared with his girlfriend and her two children, just
across the street from an elementary school. During the search, agents found more
materials used to make explosives, a homemade silencer and two unregistered short-
barreled rifles that Ross built, and two unregistered pistols. Inside Ross’s van, parked
at the shop, agents found another unregistered pistol and more chemicals, including
a bucket of ammonium hydroxide, which required a “bomb squad” to safely destroy.
Ross was indicted on several distribution of explosives and firearms offenses.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to two counts: one count of
Distribution of Explosive Materials (Flash Powder), in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 842(a)(3)(B) and 844(a); and one count of Receipt or Possession of Unregistered

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
Firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845, 5861(c), 5861(d), and 5871. At
sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 33 to 41
months. The government requested an upward variance to 46 months. Ross
requested a sentence of probation or, in the alternative, a 24-month sentence. After
hearing argument from the parties, the district court denied their requests and
imposed a sentence of 37 months.
II.
On appeal, Ross argues that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable. “We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Kirlin, 859 F.3d 539, 545 (8th Cir. 2017) (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) considers only the appropriate factors but in
weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (internal quotation omitted).
Ross challenges how the district court weighed the sentencing factors. In his
view, the court failed to properly consider several mitigating factors and instead gave
too much weight to factors it deemed aggravating. As he did at sentencing, Ross
explains that he had the explosive materials to make fireworks for “mere
entertainment purposes,” and that he built several of the firearms himself—all from
lawfully obtained materials—without a “nefarious purpose.” He contends that the
district court dismissed these factors and placed too much emphasis on the
“emotional statements” that he made after his divorce and when he was using
methamphetamine. According to Ross, these statements were not relevant to the
court’s assessment of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing sentence in
this case. Relatedly, Ross asserts that the district court failed to account for
mitigating factors, such as that he had stopped using methamphetamine, that he was
the sole provider for his family, and that he had no criminal record.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
Our review of the record assures us that the district court considered all
relevant mitigating and aggravating factors under § 3553(a). The court found Ross’s
success on pretrial release, his work history, and his lack of criminal record
mitigating. See § 3553(a)(1). Yet, it expressed significant concern about community
safety and the serious nature of his offense conduct. See § 3553(a)(2)(A), (C). The
court determined that the amount of flash powder involved, if detonated, would have
caused significant damage to both buildings and human life. And by storing these
materials in his home, across the street from a school, Ross “was endangering a
whole school full of children.” In support of a Guidelines sentence, the court also
noted this was “not just a single-time bad decision.” Rather, Ross had obtained
“extremely dangerous materials” to create explosive devices “over a period of
years.” Finally, the court emphasized that Ross possessed explosive materials “in
connection with guns,” and that he made threats against his ex-wife and her new
family. In the district court’s view, when taken together, “that all makes this crime
extremely alarming.” The court also addressed Ross’s request for a sentence of
probation, but expressly rejected it as inadequate given the serious and dangerous
nature of Ross’s offenses.
Ross “presented each of [his mitigating] facts to the district court at the
sentencing hearing,” and the court exercised its discretion to weigh them differently
than he had hoped. See United States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 774 (8th Cir.
2011) (holding that a district court may “assign relatively greater weight to the nature
and circumstances of the offense than to the [defendant’s] mitigating personal
characteristics”). We discern no abuse of discretion in how the district court weighed
and considered the relevant sentencing factors.
III.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --