Background
Jordan Austin Estermann was arrested in March 2023 on two separate occasions—first during a shoplifting stop at Mills Fleet Farm where police found firearms accessories on his person and discovered he had arrived in a stolen Ford pickup truck, and again days later in a stolen Toyota Solara with ammunition. Federal prosecutors charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Estermann pleaded guilty.
In state court, Estermann was convicted of operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent and robbery, receiving a 25-year sentence. In federal court, the district court sentenced him to 100 months in prison. On appeal, Estermann raised two issues: first, that the felon-in-possession statute was facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment; and second, that the district court erred by failing to properly apply U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 5G1.3, which governs sentencing when a defendant is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit rejected Estermann’s Second Amendment challenge as foreclosed by binding precedent, citing United States v. Cunningham (holding the longstanding prohibition on firearm possession by felons is constitutional) and United States v. Jackson (finding no need for felony-by-felony litigation over § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality).
On the sentencing issue, the court found the district court committed procedural error. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 requires that when an undischarged term of imprisonment constitutes “relevant conduct” to the federal offense, the district court must adjust the sentence for time already served and run sentences concurrently. The Presentence Investigation Report stated the robbery conviction was relevant conduct, but the district court made no explicit finding on this point. Moreover, the record did not clarify whether the court varied from the guidelines based on a relevancy determination or show that the court would impose the same sentence regardless of its interpretation of the guidelines. The court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for the district court to clarify its reasoning.
Key Takeaways
- The felon-in-possession statute remains constitutional under the Second Amendment; challenges to this prohibition are foreclosed by binding Eighth Circuit precedent.
- District courts must make explicit findings when determining whether a prior undischarged state sentence constitutes “relevant conduct” under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3.
- When the record does not clearly show how a district court applied sentencing guidelines or what discretionary choices it made, remand is necessary rather than harmless error review.
- U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 requires concurrent sentencing and credit for time served when the undischarged term is solely relevant conduct—the district court has no discretion to reject this adjustment without explicit findings to the contrary.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that district courts must follow mandatory sentencing guideline provisions and create a clear record when making sentencing determinations. Practitioners should ensure that when multiple sentences are imposed—particularly where a state conviction relates to federal charges—the district court explicitly addresses whether § 5G1.3 applies and articulates its reasoning on the record. Failure to do so risks remand and resentencing.
The opinion also signals that appellate courts will not assume compliance with sentencing guidelines when the record is ambiguous. This places an obligation on district courts to clearly state their findings regarding relevant conduct and to explain how those findings affect the ultimate sentence imposed.