United States of America v. Robert Matthew Taylor

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2558
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Robert Matthew Taylor
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: April 12, 2024
Filed: May 10, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
A jury found Robert Taylor guilty of one count of Hobbs Act Robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and one count of Brandishing a Firearm During a
Crime of Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The jury was hung
on twelve other counts: six other alleged robberies on different days and six
brandishing charges that accompanied those robberies.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Taylor had 26 criminal history points, twice the number needed to place him
in the highest criminal history category. The district court calculated an advisory
guidelines sentencing range of 70 to 87 months for the robbery conviction based on
conduct underlying that one robbery and not based on conduct related to the hung
counts. The district court varied upward and imposed a sentence of 120 months on
the robbery count (one half of the statutory maximum) but imposed the statutory
consecutive minimum of 84 months on the Section 924(c) count.
At sentencing, the district court1 more than thoroughly explained its reasoning
in applying 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and varying upward. The court considered the facts
underlying the hung counts and determined that the government had proven Taylor’s
conduct as to those facts by a preponderance of the evidence. The court discussed
several other factors as particularly material to sentencing including, as an
aggravating factor, Taylor’s conduct while incarcerated and, as a mitigating factor,
Taylor’s unstable childhood that contributed to his participation in the distribution
of serious narcotics at a young age.
On appeal, Taylor does not challenge the sufficiency of the district court’s
factual findings at sentencing. Rather, he argues the district court abused its
discretion or committed constitutional error by relying on the conduct underlying
hung counts when applying Section 3553(a). Our precedent permits reliance on
acquitted conduct when applying Section 3553(a) if a district court finds such
conduct established by preponderant evidence. See United States v. Stroud, 673 F.3d
854, 862 (8th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is the settled law of our circuit ‘that the Constitution
does not preclude a district court from considering acquitted conduct in sentencing
a criminal defendant.’” (citation omitted)). This same precedent necessarily permits
reliance on conduct associated with hung counts.
1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --