In a recent ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 60-month prison sentence of Herman Dewayne Steen after he pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. This decision, made on November 3, 2026, has significant implications for how prior convictions are scored in sentencing, especially for individuals with lengthy criminal histories.

Steen's case stemmed from charges filed against him for possessing firearms on two separate occasions in December 2022 and March 2023, despite his prior felony convictions. The court's decision to affirm his sentence is important as it clarifies how courts should handle criminal history points during sentencing, particularly regarding older offenses.

Background

The case against Herman Steen began when he was indicted on two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Steen, who had a lengthy criminal record, entered an open guilty plea to both counts. Prior to his sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report (PSI) that detailed Steen's criminal history.

Two specific convictions were critical to the court's decision. The PSI revealed that Steen had a 2003 Alabama conviction for possession of a controlled substance, which resulted in a 10-year prison sentence. He also had a 2004 conviction for second-degree assault, leading to a 15-year sentence. Both convictions were relevant in calculating Steen's criminal history points, which ultimately influenced his sentencing guidelines.

At sentencing, Steen did not dispute that these prior convictions were correctly scored. However, he argued that his criminal history was overstated because the convictions were close to the 15-year window that typically affects scoring. He contended that if he had committed the firearm offenses just a few months later, his prior convictions would not have counted against him.

The Ruling

The Eleventh Circuit Court, which included Judges Newsom, Branch, and Brasher, ultimately ruled in favor of the government, affirming the district court's decision. The court noted that Steen had invited the error he was now claiming on appeal. During the sentencing phase, he had agreed that his criminal history score was calculated correctly.

The court stated, "It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party."

Steen's appeal focused on the claim that the district court had incorrectly assigned three points for his 2003 drug conviction, which he argued was too old to be scored. However, the court found that Steen's agreement with the PSI's calculations at sentencing constituted an invitation of the alleged error.

Furthermore, the court addressed Steen's motion for reconsideration, which he filed shortly after sentencing. The district court denied this motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence after the 14-day period allowed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, emphasizing that Steen's late efforts to raise the issue did not negate his prior agreement.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for defendants with lengthy criminal histories. It reinforces the principle that defendants cannot later contest errors they have previously invited during sentencing. This decision may deter similar appeals in the future, as it emphasizes the need for defendants to raise all arguments at the appropriate time.

Moreover, the court's ruling clarifies how courts should interpret the scoring of older convictions in relation to the 15-year window. It highlights the importance of timely objections and the risks of relying on later motions to correct perceived errors in sentencing.

What's Next

Steen's options for appeal appear limited following this ruling. The court's decision is final unless he can present new evidence or legal arguments that were not previously available. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending or further actions Steen might pursue.