8th Circuit upholds a 60-month sentence for a felon caught with a gun, ruling the…
United States v. Steven Whitesell
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit upholds a 60-month sentence for a felon caught with a gun, ruling the judge reasonably varied upward because his criminal history was underrepresented by the Guidelines.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the above-Guidelines sentence imposed on Steven Whitesell, a felon found with a firearm during a traffic stop. The district court sentenced him to 60 months, above the recommended 27 to 33 month range, because his criminal history was underrepresented by the standard calculation. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion, noting the judge carefully weighed Whitesell's lengthy record, discounted his youthful offenses, and identified specific concerns about his domestic violence and assaultive history.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects federal criminal defendants who have prior convictions that receive little or no weight under the standard sentencing guidelines, as it confirms that judges may impose higher sentences when they find that criminal history is underrepresented. It also reinforces the broad discretion federal district court judges hold when departing upward from recommended sentencing ranges.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 23, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 23, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 23, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Steven Whitesell was stopped for a traffic violation, and an officer spotted a firearm under a pillow on the passenger seat. Whitesell admitted he was a felon. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The central question on appeal was whether the district court acted reasonably when it sentenced him to 60 months in prison, well above the Guidelines range of 27 to 33 months. The district court varied upward primarily because the standard Guidelines calculation did not fully capture Whitesell's criminal history. Several of his convictions received no criminal history points, leaving the judge to conclude the recommended range underrepresented how serious and extensive his record actually was. The judge did give Whitesell partial credit for offenses committed before age 24, agreeing with the defense argument that young people lack full adult judgment. However, the judge placed particular weight on a domestic assault conviction at age 30, calling it a significant concern given the combination of a firearm, an assaultive history, and substance abuse history. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the sentence under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. It explained that a district court abuses its discretion only if it ignores a relevant factor, relies on an improper factor, or makes a clear error in weighing the factors. The court found none of those problems here. It noted that an underrepresented criminal history can justify an upward variance even when that history was already partly accounted for by the Guidelines, as long as the record supports it. The court also found the district court's reasoning compelling enough to justify the degree of departure from the Guidelines range. No dissent was noted in the opinion. The court affirmed the 60-month sentence in full.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-1726 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Steven Wayne Whitesell Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: May 15, 2026 Filed: July 23, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before L.R. SMITH, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. An officer stopped Steven Whitesell for a traffic violation. As the officer approached Whitesell’s vehicle, he saw a firearm under a pillow on the front passenger seat. The officer took possession of the weapon. During the stop, Whitesell disclosed that he was a felon. The government indicted Whitesell for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Whitesell pleaded guilty a few months later. The district court 1 sentenced him to an above-Guidelines sentence. Whitesell appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the district court’s upward variance. He argues that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to certain sentencing factors. We affirm. Whitesell was 43 years old at the time of this offense. He has a criminal record dating back to the age of 17. His record includes four prior felony convictions. The presentence report assigned criminal history points only to the qualifying misdemeanor convictions and his most recent felony conviction, resulting in 12 criminal history points and a criminal history category of V. The recommended Guidelines range was 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment. At sentencing, the government argued that the calculated Guidelines range underrepresented Whitesell’s criminal history because several of his convictions received no criminal history points. The government therefore recommended 78 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Ultimately, the district court sentenced Whitesell to 60 months’ imprisonment. In explaining its sentence, the court discussed Whitesell’s criminal history at length and noted that three felony convictions—felony stealing, tampering with a witness, and second-degree assault—occurred before he turned 24. The court distinguished these early convictions from his later criminal conduct, noting that adults prior to age 24 lack intellectual maturity. However, the district court did emphasize Whitesell’s misdemeanor domestic-assault conviction at age 30: This I do consider in that there are heightened concerns with felons who possess firearms who have an assaultive background. There’s a heightened concern when felons who possess firearms also have a history of substance abuse. There’s also a heightened concern for felons 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- in possession of a firearm if there’s a history of domestic assaultive conduct. So this conviction at age 30 . . . is a flag for the [c]ourt. R. Doc. 38, at 5–6. This appeal followed. “We review a defendant’s challenge to substantive reasonableness under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Jones, 71 F.4th 1083, 1086 (8th Cir. 2023). “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (citation modified). We “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 461–62 (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). The district court discussed at length the dangerous character of Whitesell’s most recent convictions. It varied upward because of his “underrepresented criminal history.” United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724, 726 (8th Cir. 2009). An underrepresented criminal history may support an upward variance, when supported by the record, even if the variance is “based on criminal history already accounted for by the Guidelines.” United States v. Manuel, 73 F.4th 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2023). The district court rejected the government’s recommended sentence of 78 months, choosing instead to discount Whitesell’s youthful indiscretions. The district court stated: I am persuaded by [Whitesell’s] argument that many of the offenses occurred when the defendant was less than 25. And I agree with [Whitesell]—and I know that’s a common argument and theory in defense cases that young folks under 25 really don’t have the full -3- mature judgment, adult judgment and that that should be a factor. And I personally believe that there’s merit to that point. R. Doc. 38, at 4. When a district court decides that the defendant deserves a sentence beyond the Guidelines range, the district court “must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. “[A] major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.” Id. Here, the district court’s analysis of the sentencing factors, including the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to provide just punishment for the offense, the desire for deterrence, and the value of protecting the public all justified the upward variance. “The district court’s focus on [Whitesell’s] criminal history—including his ‘aged-out’ convictions—was appropriate considering [Whitesell’s] lengthy violent criminal record . . . .” Manuel, 73 F.4th at 993. We therefore affirm. ___________________________ -4-
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.