United States of America v. Bryan Richard Holt, also known as Monster

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1214
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Bryan Richard Holt, also known as Monster
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: January 13, 2025
Filed: February 27, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Bryan Richard Holt pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A).
The district court1 sentenced Holt to an imprisonment term of 228 months, followed
1 The Honorable Rebecca G. Ebinger, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
by 7 years of supervised release. On appeal, Holt challenges the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence.
Between January and April 2023, a confidential informant (“CI”) made four
controlled purchases from Holt, buying methamphetamine three times and cocaine
once. Each time, Holt served as the middleman between the CI and co-defendant
Michael Tittle, his source of supply. Holt supplied a total of 883 grams of
methamphetamine and 19 grams of cocaine to the CI. Tittle was subsequently
arrested and admitted selling drugs to Holt.
In June 2023, Holt was indicted on four drug-related charges: conspiracy to
distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846 (Count One); distribution of 50 grams or more
of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A) (Counts Two and Four); and distribution of 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine and a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and
841(b)(1)(C) (Count Three). Holt pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine. The United States Probation Office prepared a presentence
investigation report (“PSIR”) that calculated Holt’s total offense level at 34 and his
criminal history category at VI. Holt was a career offender with a lengthy criminal
history that included convictions for assault, causing willful injury, and harassment.
At sentencing, the district court adopted the PSIR and determined Holt’s
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 262 to 327 months. Holt requested a
downward variance based on his need for substance abuse treatment and national
statistics showing similarly situated defendants received a 188-month sentence on
average. The district court acknowledged these arguments as well as Holt’s
mitigating evidence of a difficult childhood and mental health issues. It imposed a
below-Guidelines sentence of 228 months’ imprisonment, noting Holt’s violent
behavior had increased over time and he posed a danger to the public. Holt now
challenges the reasonableness of his sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Washington, 893 F.3d 1076, 1080 (8th Cir. 2018). A
district court abuses its discretion if 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) commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the
appropriate factors. United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008, 1033 (8th Cir. 2015). When
a district court imposes a below-Guidelines sentence, it is “nearly inconceivable”
that it abused its discretion by not varying further downward. United States v.
Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009).
The record establishes the district court considered Holt’s rehabilitation
needs, and the average sentence imposed for similarly situated defendants. A
sentencing court has wide latitude to assign certain sentencing factors more weight
than others. See United States v. Isler, 983 F.3d 335, 344 (8th Cir. 2020). Here, the
court chose to assign greater weight to Holt’s criminal history and the need to protect
the public from further crimes. To establish substantive unreasonableness, Holt
“must show more than the fact that the district court disagreed with his view of what
weight ought to be accorded certain sentencing factors.” United States v. Townsend,
617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Holt’s disagreement with the
sentence imposed does not warrant reversal.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --