United States v. Hamilton, 950 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2020). The court mistakenly believed that on remand it could consider only the criminal history issue that was the subject of the defendant’s appeal. With the exception of issues decided by the appellate court, the defendant may raise, and the district court may consider, any new issues it could have heard at the original sentencing hearing.
United States v. Winnick, 954 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir. 2020). When applying a §5G1.3 adjustment for time in state custody on related state offenses, the date on which the federal case was initiated is irrelevant. The district court here was instructed to apply the following four steps on remand: (1) determine what, if any, time was served in state custody for relevant conduct; (2) adjust the federal sentence for time served in state custody for solely relevant conduct; (3) determine whether, and by how much, to depart for time served in state custody for conduct that was either not relevant or a mixture of relevant and not relevant conduct; and (4) determine whether to depart or vary from the sentence as calculated after steps one through three.
United States v. Harrison, 974 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2020). The court plainly erred when it suggested, with a plea deal still on the table, that the defendant could do better if he went to trial. The court sentenced the defendant after trial to a sentence above what the government agreed to recommend in the plea deal. The case was remanded to a different judge for resentencing, permitting the judge to consider the likelihood that the defendant would have received an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction absent the Rule 11(c)(1) violation.
United States v. Harrell, 982 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 2020). The court’s statement about “extraordinary gun violence” in the community and the community’s perception of the defendant was not plain error even though the statements were “unsupported by the record and the PSR.” Even assuming the court’s statement was plainly erroneous, the defendant could not show that this error affected his substantial rights because those factors did not form the principal basis for the sentence.
United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir. 2020). USSG §5G1.3(d) applies to a defendant subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment for relevant and non-relevant conduct, and in such cases, a court may choose to run the sentence for the instant offense concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the undischarged term of imprisonment.
United States v. Barthman, 983 F.3d 318 (8th Cir. 2020). A court does not abuse its discretion when, following remand, it imposes a new sentence that is “out of proportion” to the original sentence in terms of where it falls within the applicable guideline range.
United States v. Barthman, 983 F.3d 318 (8th Cir. 2020). The court clearly erred in finding that the defendant was non-indigent for purposes of imposing a $5,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The defendant had “a negative net worth of $166,903” and “will be nearly 80 years old, if not older, when he is released from custody.”