United States v. Damien Nelson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 27, 2022
• Docket: 21-3372
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3372 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Damien Lashaun Nelson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: April 18, 2022 Filed: April 27, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Damien Lashaun Nelson appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and firearm offenses, and the district court1 imposed an aggregate prison sentence to run

1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. partially consecutively to an undischarged state sentence. On appeal, Nelson challenges as substantively unreasonable the district court’s decision to impose the sentence partially consecutively to his undischarged state sentence.

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, this court finds no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the record, Nelson’s mental health issues, and Nelson’s request to run his federal sentence concurrently; and exercised its discretion to order that the sentence run partially consecutively. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also United States v. Long, 870 F.3d 792, 799 (8th Cir. 2017) (district court may rely more heavily on some factors than others) (citation omitted); United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 376 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion where district court considered § 3553(a) factors and recognized its discretion to run sentences concurrently but declined to do so).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________

-2-