Sentencing appeal denied in 2017 theft, carjacking

ST. LOUIS — A federal appellate court recently issued an opinion affirming the 20-year sentences of two East St. Louis, Illinois, men who were convicted of illegally possessing firearms stolen from Instapawn in Butler County and an unrelated carjacking.

Antywan Seawood, 22, and Arlandus Howard, 23, appealed the “substantive reasonableness of their sentences,” to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The men cited their youth at the time of the 2017 crimes and lack of criminal history in making the appeals.

The sentences were imposed by U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr.

Howard and Seawood “committed a series of crimes starting in February 2017 that involved three carjackings and the theft of 63 firearms,” the opinion says.

The carjackings occurred in the St. Louis area, while the theft occurred Feb. 28, 2017, at Instapawn, a federal firearms licensee, on Highway NN in Butler County.

Limbaugh sentenced Howard in October 2018 after he was convicted by a jury of the felonies of possession of stolen firearms, carjacking and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

The jury could not reach a unanimous decision on Howard’s four other counts concerning a second and third carjackings, and the government dismissed those counts.

Seawood was sentenced in September 2018 after he pleaded guilty to the felonies of possession of stolen firearms, carjacking and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The government dismissed Seawood’s remaining four counts pursuant to his plea agreement.

Limbaugh sentenced both men to 240 months, denying the government’s request for a 360-month sentence for Howard and a 300-month sentence for Seawood.

The government, according to the opinion, had requested the longer sentences largely based on the conduct in the dismissed counts.

In their appeal, Howard and Seawood argued the district court “ignored relevant sentencing factors, such as their relative youth and lack of criminal histories,” the opinion says.

“The record shows that the district court considered both of these factors in crafting the appellants’ sentences and in denying the government’s motions” for higher sentences, according to the opinion.

The opinion further says the district court weighed those factors, among others, against the seriousness of the crimes committed.

In addition to illegally possessing firearms stolen during the Instapawn burglary, Howard and Seawood were convicted of a Feb. 26, 2017, carjacking in Clayton, Missouri.

At about 10:15 p.m. that day, a woman reportedly was seated inside her car outside her home, when it was approached by four men, two of whom were armed.

Seawood and another man reportedly pointed their handguns at the woman, threatening to harm her if she did not open her car door.

When she did, one of Seawood and Howard’s accomplices, reached in, grabbed her arm and threw here onto the ground.

Seawood, Howard and their accomplices then stole the woman’s car and subsequently used it to commit the firearms theft in Butler County.

While Seawood argued his sentence was “substantively unreasonable,” the appellate judges disagreed.

“The district court accurately calculated his applicable guideline range at sentencing,” the opinion says. “Further, the court made clear that it had a well-considered plan for crafting proportionate sentences for Seawood, Howard and their codefendants, taking into consideration their roles in the violent crime spree.”

Neither the record, nor arguments raised by Seawood, give “any indication that the court’s descriptive error was also substantive,” the opinion says.

Howard and Seawood further argued the district court “gave outsized weight to their conduct pertaining to the second and third carjackings,” the opinion further says.

The sentencing court, according to the opinion, was “not prohibited from considering acquitted conduct ‘so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.’”

Citing case law, the appellate judges said, the district court “must consider all relevant conduct ‘whether uncharged, charged, or charged and dismissed’” at sentencing.

The district court, which presided over Howard’s trial, “applied the proper standard of proof at sentencing and its factual findings were adequately supported by the record,” the opinion says.