United States of America v. Thomas Wende

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2064
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Thomas Wende
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern
____________
Submitted: September 15, 2025
Filed: October 6, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Wende pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to a 96-month
term of imprisonment. Wende appeals, contending his sentence is substantively
1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
unreasonable because the district court considered an improper factor and did not
sufficiently weigh several mitigating factors. We affirm.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence using a deferential
abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Wilson, 122 F.4th 317, 325 (8th Cir.
2024). A district court abuses its discretion if it gives significant weight to an
improper factor or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate
factors. United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008, 1033 (8th Cir. 2015). Wende asserts
the district court abused its discretion when it imposed an above-Guidelines sentence
based in part on his criminal history—a factor already accounted for in the
calculation of his Guidelines range. A sentencing court may rely on factors already
taken into account in calculating a defendant’s Guidelines range. See United States
v. Holmes, 137 F.4th 734, 743 (8th Cir. 2025). We find no abuse of discretion, as
the variance was neither substantial, nor did the court place undue weight on
Wende’s criminal history. See id.
Wende’s other claim—that the district court did not adequately consider his
difficult childhood, participation in rehabilitative programs, and expressions of
remorse—is also unavailing. A sentencing court has broad discretion to assign some
sentencing factors more weight than others. Wilson, 122 F.4th at 325. In the plea
agreement, Wende admitted he fled from arrest, scuffled with the arresting officers,
and threatened to kill one of the officers. The district court found Wende’s threats
concerning in light of his violent criminal history. The court also noted Wende had
not been deterred by his prior sentences. The court determined, under these facts,
the applicable Guidelines range did not sufficiently address the need to protect the
public and promote respect for the law. The court balanced the aggravating factors
against Wende’s allocution and rehabilitative efforts and explained the reasons for
its variance. Wende has not shown an abuse of the district court’s discretion, or that
his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Davis, 20 F.4th
1217, 1221 (8th Cir. 2021) (observing the rationale for a variance “does not need to
be extraordinary, only substantively reasonable”).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
We affirm.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --