Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Deangelo Tarryl GRANT Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-2846

Decided: October 12, 2018

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. Christopher R. Hayes, Brown Cornell Farrow LLC, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant Jim Y. Lynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jefferson City, MO (Thomas M. Larson, Acting U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee


Deangelo Tarryl Grant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm that he threw from the window of his car while attempting to flee a traffic stop. The district court 1 determined that Grant’s advisory guidelines sentencing range was 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment. Explaining its “obligation to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the court imposed a 99-month sentence. Grant appeals, arguing the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Grant argues the district court abused its discretion in varying upward because it gave undue weight to Grant’s offense conduct and extensive criminal history -- factors already considered in determining the advisory guidelines range -- and did not consider his family history of drug and alcohol abuse and the lack of prior violent felony convictions. As we have repeatedly stated, “a court may vary upward based on criminal history even though that history has already been accounted for in the Guidelines.” United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724, 727 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 2012). The district court articulated many reasons why an upward variance of twelve months was warranted -- the “irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous” nature of Grant’s attempt to flee police and discard his weapon, his lengthy criminal history, and the court’s determination that his conduct “present[ed] a danger to the public.” After careful review of the sentencing record, we conclude this is not the “unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence -- whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range -- as substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its “substantial sentencing discretion.” United States v. Abrica-Sanchez, 808 F.3d 330, 335 (8th Cir. 2015).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.


1.   The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.


Copied to clipboard