Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Stanley D. RICE Defendant - Appellant
[Unpublished]
Stanley D. Rice pleaded guilty to two counts of interstate transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). The district court 1 sentenced Rice to life imprisonment, the advisory sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Rice argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of several mitigating factors, including the childhood sexual abuse he suffered, his long-term methamphetamine addiction, and the financial support he provided for his family.
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Rice’s mitigating factors did not support a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Rice had sexually abused minors in the 1980s, and the counts of conviction here related to Rice’s sexual abuse of two other minors in 2011 and 2009. Rice began sexually abusing Jane Doe when she was five years old and the abuse continued for years. Rice sexually abused John Doe when he was a teenager and introduced him to methamphetamine. Rice had worked as a trucker and sometimes brought the victims with him when he traveled, sexually abusing the children during these trips. The district court concluded that Rice’s long history of sexual abuse and the egregious circumstances of the instant offenses deserved greater consideration than his troubled childhood, his drug use, or his positive attributes, “which is a determination well within the discretion of the district court.” See United States v. Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. King, 898 F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weigh mitigating factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
The judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-2407
Decided: May 12, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)