United States of America v. Steven Michael Lincoln

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2186
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Steven Michael Lincoln
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: January 13, 2023
Filed: April 18, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Steven Michael Lincoln pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of
firearms, possessing an unregistered firearm, and possessing with intent to distribute
a controlled substance. The district court1 imposed 100-month terms of imprisonment
1The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

on the firearm offenses and a 114-month term of imprisonment on the controlled-
substance offense, to run concurrently. The 114-month total sentence was within the
advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Lincoln challenges the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence, which we review for abuse of discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (standard of review).
Lincoln argues that the district court erred in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (district court abuses its discretion when it commits a clear error of
judgment in weighing sentencing factors). Specifically, he argues that the district
court should have given greater weight to his history and characteristics—i.e., his
difficult childhood, his struggles with substance abuse, his acceptance of
responsibility, his renewed commitment to recovery, and his mostly misdemeanors,
relatively short prison term criminal history. See § 3553(a)(1). The sentencing
transcript makes clear that the district court carefully considered those factors, but
nonetheless determined that Lincoln had committed “serious crimes that merit
significant punishment,” particularly in light of his lengthy criminal history. See
§ 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A). We thus conclude that the district court did not commit
any clear error in judgment in deciding to accord substantial weight to the seriousness
of Lincoln’s drug and firearm offenses. See United States v. Brown, 992 F.3d 665,
673 (8th Cir. 2021) (“[Defendant’s] assertion of substantive unreasonableness
amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with how the district court chose to
weigh the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning his sentence.”); United States v. King, 898
F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weigh mitigating
factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.”
(cleaned up)). Lincoln’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --