United States of America v. Louis James Swallow

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1990
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Louis James Swallow
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: June 8, 2026
Filed: June 25, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Louis Swallow raped a thirteen-year-old girl, he pleaded guilty to
committing sexual abuse. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2242(3), 2246(2)(A), 1153. The district

-- 1 of 3 --

court1 calculated Swallow’s recommended sentencing range to be 168 to 210 months
in prison, but the court varied upward and imposed a sentence of 240 months.
Swallow maintains on appeal that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
affirm.
The sexual abuse with which Swallow was charged occurred one evening just
a few weeks before he turned 21 years old. Swallow admitted at the time of his plea
that he was at his girlfriend’s house when the victim arrived there to drink alcohol.
He went on to admit that, when she left to walk home, he followed her, “grabbed her
near some trees, pushed her down, and vaginally raped her with [his] penis while
holding her down.” According to portions of a presentence report that Swallow does
not dispute, he instructed her not to tell anyone about the incident. This wasn’t the
first time Swallow committed sexual abuse: The district court found on a sufficient
record that about three years earlier Swallow choked and raped the mother of one of
his children.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel requested a sentence at the bottom
of the Guidelines range. She emphasized Swallow’s youth, the prospect that
rehabilitation and treatment would help him, and his difficult childhood. On the other
hand, the government requested a sentence of 360 months, most notably because of
the nature and circumstances of the offense and Swallow’s history of abusive
behavior. In fixing Swallow’s sentence, the court explicitly mentioned some of the
difficult circumstances Swallow had faced as a child, as well as some of the treatment
programs that Swallow had previously participated in. But the court was troubled by
the instant offense and Swallow’s history of sexual abuse, and so it said that a 240-
month sentence was appropriate to ensure the public’s safety.
1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

On appeal, Swallow contends that the court gave too little weight to certain
mitigating circumstances. For instance, he says that the court didn’t give enough
weight to his successful completion of one treatment program or to circumstances that
might explain why he didn’t complete other treatment programs, including that his
aunt murdered his cousin and that he had attempted suicide. Swallow highlights other
circumstances that he says the court didn’t adequately consider, such as his violent
surroundings, his youth, his willingness to participate in treatment, and his contrition.
We review Swallow’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Scanlan, 65 F.4th 406, 409
(8th Cir. 2023) (per curiam). “It is the unusual case when we reverse a district court
sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—as
substantively unreasonable.” Id. This is not the unusual case. The district court gave
an ample explanation for the conclusion that the circumstances of Swallow’s offense
and his history made an upward variance appropriate, weighing heavily the need to
protect the public from additional offenses that Swallow might commit. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(C). And after receiving a presentence report describing the mitigating
circumstances Swallow emphasizes, and after listening to defense counsel discuss
them at the sentencing hearing, the court addressed them when fixing the sentence.
That the court didn’t give them the weight that Swallow wishes isn’t grounds for
reversal. See United States v. Noriega, 35 F.4th 643, 652 (8th Cir. 2022). We see no
abuse of discretion here.
Affirmed.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --