United States of America v. Michael S. Simmons

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3521
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael S. Simmons
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: September 23, 2024
Filed: December 13, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Simmons appeals the 120-month sentence imposed by the district
court1 following his guilty plea to illegal possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Simmons argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We affirm.
I. Background
On September 18, 2022, police officers in Kansas City, Missouri, responded
to a report of a person acting erratically in the street. Upon arrival, they observed
Simmons fire several gunshots toward the ground and a nearby dog. Simmons
appeared intoxicated and disregarded officers’ commands. After taking him into
custody, officers recovered a loaded .40 caliber Glock pistol and spent shell casings
from the area.
Simmons admitted that he had smoked PCP prior to his arrest. He claimed
that someone had stolen his truck but could not be sure given his state of intoxication.
At the time of this incident, Simmons was serving a term of supervised release for a
prior conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. This marked Simmons’s
third such offense, with previous convictions in 2006 and 2020. His criminal history
also included felony convictions for aggravated assault, habitual possession of
marijuana, attempting to elude police, and selling cocaine.
Simmons pleaded guilty to the new felon-in-possession charge without a plea
agreement. The district court held a combined sentencing hearing to address
Simmons’s supervised release violations and the new offense. For the supervised
release violations, the court calculated a Guidelines range of 8 to 14 months’
imprisonment. For the new offense, the Guidelines range was 30 to 37 months. The
court noted that the statutory maximum for the new crime was 15 years.
The district court imposed a 14-month revocation sentence for the supervised
release violations. For the new offense, the court varied upward and sentenced
Simmons to a consecutive term of 120 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years
of supervised release.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
II. Discussion
Simmons challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his 120-month
sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. We review the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
United States v. Jones, 71 F.4th 1083, 1087 (8th Cir. 2023). “A sentencing court
abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in
weighing those factors.” United States v. Williams, 913 F.3d 1115, 1116 (8th Cir.
2019) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 812 F.3d 714, 715 (8th Cir.
2016) (per curiam)).
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing a 120-month sentence. The court properly calculated
the Guidelines range and expressly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The
court discussed at length Simmons’s history and characteristics, including his eight
prior felony convictions, and noted this was his third offense for being a felon in
possession of a firearm. The court also noted the seriousness of Simmons’s conduct,
which involved discharging a firearm in public while under the influence of PCP.
Additionally, the district court stated that it had considered the following factors:
“respect for the law; the need to protect the public; the need for deterrence; the nature
and circumstances of this crime, your history and your characteristics; and even all
the other ones I haven’t discussed.” R. Doc. 34, at 23–24. The district court provided
a reasoned basis for the variance, grounded in the § 3553(a) factors and the specific
circumstances of Simmons’s case.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
Simmons disputes whether the district court properly weighed the relevant
sentencing factors. However, we have repeatedly held that such arguments must be
more than mere disagreement with the court’s analysis to justify reversal. E.g.,
Jones, 71 F.4th at 1087. The district court carefully considered the applicable factors
and articulated its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence. Simmons has shown
no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to vary upward to 120 months’
imprisonment.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --