8th Circuit upholds 110-month sentence for felon who burglarized a friend's home during her funeral…
United States v. Antonio Hoffman, Jr.
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 110-month sentence for felon who burglarized a friend's home during her funeral and sold stolen assault rifles, finding the sentence reasonable.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the 110-month prison sentence of Antonio Dontez Hoffman Jr., who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms after burglarizing a family friend's home during her funeral and selling stolen guns on the black market. Hoffman had asked for a shorter sentence based on his age, difficult upbringing, a serious heart condition, and the argument that his criminal history was overrepresented. The appeals court found the district court properly weighed all the mitigating factors and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the advisory guidelines range.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Antonio Dontez Hoffman Jr. More broadly, it reaffirms for defendants in the Eighth Circuit that within-guidelines sentences carry a presumption of reasonableness and that denials of downward departures are generally not reviewable on appeal.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 17, 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Unpublished opinion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 17, 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Jul 17, 2026 · Unpublished opinion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
Antonio Dontez Hoffman Jr. pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after he and a co-conspirator broke into a family friend's home while her funeral was taking place, stole numerous firearms including assault rifles with extended magazines, and then sold many of those guns on the black market. His prior criminal record included convictions for possessing a stolen pistol and strangling the mother of his child. At sentencing, the advisory guidelines range was 100 to 125 months. Hoffman asked for a sentence below that range, arguing his criminal history was overrepresented because it happened recently and over a short time, and that he had an extraordinary physical impairment, specifically a heart condition called left ventricular non-compaction that would require a transplant within five to eight years. The district court considered all of these arguments, along with his age of 21, a difficult upbringing, family support, and the death of his child. The court concluded that the heart condition was treatable and did not rise to the level of an extraordinary impairment, that his criminal history was not overrepresented, and that the seriousness of the offense and his criminal history together justified a within-guidelines sentence of 110 months. On appeal, Hoffman raised two arguments. First, he said the district court was wrong to deny his request for a downward departure from the guidelines. The Eighth Circuit said it could not review that decision because appeals courts can only review such denials when the district court either had an unconstitutional motive or mistakenly believed it lacked authority to depart. Neither situation applied here, so that argument was unreviewable. Second, Hoffman argued his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court gave too little weight to mitigating factors and too much weight to the offense and his criminal history. The court reviewed this under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and found no error, noting that district courts have wide latitude to weigh sentencing factors and that sentences within the guidelines range are presumed reasonable. The court found nothing unreasonable about the 110-month sentence given the circumstances. The opinion was unanimous, decided by three judges in a per curiam opinion, meaning no single judge authored it. There was no dissent. The ruling does not change the law but applies existing standards to confirm that within-guidelines sentences are difficult to overturn on appeal.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-2938 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Dontez Hoffman, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: December 15, 2025 Filed: July 17, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, L.R. SMITH, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Dontez Hoffman and a co-conspirator burglarized the home of a family friend during the friend’s funeral, stealing many firearms and ammunition, including assault rifles with extended magazines. They then sold many of these guns on the black market. Hoffman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His criminal history includes convictions for possessing a stolen pistol and strangling the mother of his child. At sentencing, the district court1 determined that Hoffman’s advisory guidelines sentencing range is 100 to 125 months imprisonment. Hoffman requested a downward departure from the Guidelines range, arguing his criminal history is overrepresented because it is recent and occurred over a short period, and he has an “extraordinary physical impairment” -- he has been diagnosed with “left ventricular non-compaction” and will need a heart transplant in the next five to eight years. See USSG §§ 4A1.3(b), 5H1.4 (2023). The district court explicitly considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and considered mitigating factors noted by Hoffman, including his age (21), tumultuous upbringing, support from friends and family, and recent trauma from the death of his child. The court disagreed with Hoffman’s assertion that many of his criminal history offenses occurred after the assault conduct at issue; in particular, he strangled the mother of his child the month before the instant offense, though it was not charged until after this offense had occurred. The district court also considered Hoffman’s need for treatment of his heart condition a mitigating factor but found that it is treatable and does not rise to the level of an extraordinary physical impairment. The court concluded that the severity of Hoffman’s offense conduct combined with his criminal history warranted a within-Guidelines-range sentence, denied the requested downward departure, and sentenced Hoffman to 110 months imprisonment. Hoffman appeals, arguing the district court erred in denying his downward departure request and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm. 1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- 1. “A district court’s decision to deny a downward departure is unreviewable unless the district court had an unconstitutional motive or erroneously thought that it was without authority to grant the departure.” United States v. Angeles-Moctezuma, 927 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). There is no claim of (and no basis to claim) an unconstitutional motive in this case. The court’s careful consideration of Hoffman’s reasons for requesting a downward departure made it clear the court understood it was not without authority to grant the request. Because the district court was aware of its authority and Hoffman does not argue an unconstitutional motive, this argument is unreviewable on appeal. 2. Hoffman argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because, in deciding to impose a within-Guidelines-range sentence, the court failed to give proper weight to the above-described mitigating factors, while giving too much weight to the nature of the offense conduct and his criminal history. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “[I]t will be 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). “When a sentence is within the advisory guidelines range, we presume that it is reasonable.” United States v. Maati, 144 F.4th 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2025) (citations omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors differently than Hoffman preferred. “The district court has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009). Given the severity of the offense conduct -- burglarizing a friend’s home during her funeral and then selling stolen assault rifles on the black market -- together with a criminal history that includes violent and firearm offenses as a young adult, Hoffman does not convince us, as he failed to -3- convince the district court, that he warranted a below-Guidelines-range sentence. Accordingly, his 110-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -4-
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.