United States of America v. Kyrell Deshawn Wells

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3366
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kyrell Deshawn Wells
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: May 6, 2024
Filed: August 12, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kyrell Deshawn Wells sold 500 to 1,000 fentanyl pills a day in Omaha,
Nebraska, from December 2021 until his arrest in August 2022. He pleaded guilty
to conspiring to distribute 400 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture or 100 grams or
more of a fentanyl-analogue mixture, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
The district court1 varied down from a Guidelines sentence of life in prison and
imposed a 360-month sentence. Wells appeals, challenging the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence.
We review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Cullar, 104 F.4th 686, 690 (8th Cir. 2024). A district court abuses
its discretion when it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors.” Id. (citation
omitted). We presume that a below-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. United
States v. Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106, 1116 (8th Cir. 2020).
Wells has not overcome that presumption. He argues that the district court
gave too much weight to his “frivolous” challenges to the drug-quantity and
leadership-role findings, his decision to not cooperate with the Government, and his
obstructive conduct while in jail, while not giving enough weight to his personal
characteristics. The district court explained that Wells’s failure to accept
responsibility and his obstructive conduct led to a higher offense level, see U.S.S.G.
§§ 3E1.1, 3C1.1, and distinguished Wells from his codefendants who had received
shorter sentences. The record also shows that the district court considered Wells’s
relative youth—he was only twenty at sentencing—and his upbringing, which was
filled with substance abuse, physical and emotional abuse, and gun violence. What
drove Wells’s sentence was his lengthy criminal history and his “horrifyingly high
guideline range,” not any clear error in judgment in weighing the sentencing factors.
We affirm the district court’s judgment. Defense counsel’s motion to
withdraw is denied without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 27B(b).
______________________________
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 2 --