161419P.pdf   10/12/2018  United States  v.  Rashawn Long
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1419
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. This opinion is issued by 
   Judge Loken and Judge Melloy pursuant to the provisions of 8th Cir. R. 
   47E. The court issued a decision in this matter on August 31, 2017, but 
   granted defendant's petition for rehearing by panel for further 
   consideration under United States v. Byrd, 138 S.Ct. 1518 (2018). Assuming 
   without deciding that defendant had standing to challenge a search of a 
   rental vehicle, the district court did not err in determining that the 
   inventory search of the vehicle was reasonable and fully justified under 
   the circumstances; inventory search was properly performed and in 
   compliance with Kansas City Missouri Police Department written policies; 
   defendant's Missouri conviction for armed criminal action was a crime of 
   violence under the residual clause of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.2(a), as that 
   clause stood at the time of sentencing; while a significant upward 
   variance, the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 
  
161419P.pdf   08/31/2017  United States  v.  Rashawn Long
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-1419
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant, the 
   unauthorized-driver-once-removed, with only indirect permission from the 
   authorized driver to drive the vehicle, does not have standing to 
   challenge the search of the vehicle; Missouri's armed criminal action 
   statute was a crime of violence under the then-existing residual clause, 
   and the district court did not err in assessing a criminal history point 
   for defendant's conviction for armed criminal action; the district court 
   adequately explained its reasoning for imposing an upward variance, 
   clearly addressing the 3553(a) factors and was within its discretion in 
   imposing a 360-month sentence.