United States v. Matthew Rupert ( 2022 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2849
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Matthew Lee Rupert
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 16, 2022
Filed: April 28, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Matthew L. Rupert pled guilty to arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 844(i).
During protests after the murder of George Floyd, Rupert lit a fire in the back of a
Sprint store in Minneapolis. The fire triggered the sprinkler system, causing
extensive damage to the store. The district court1 sentenced Rupert to 105 months
in prison. Rupert appeals his sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
this court affirms.
Rupert contends the district court clearly erred in its guidelines determination.
The district court found that Rupert’s “actions and statements clearly show that he
was attempting to destroy the store,” thus placing him in the highest base offense
level. See U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4(a)(1)(B). This court “review[s] a district court's factual
findings for clear error and its interpretation and application of the sentencing
guidelines de novo.” United States v. Farish, 535 F.3d 815, 824 (8th Cir. 2008).
Via live video stream, Rupert documented his acts on May 29, 2020. He
repeatedly asked people leaving the store “Should we torch it?” Entering the store,
he declared: “We’re gonna torch it, everybody gotta get out.” That video and the
store’s surveillance video show him gathering boxes and pouring lighter fluid on
them as an accelerant. He ordered his companion (a minor) to light the pile. Fleeing,
Rupert shouted “I lit it on fire! I lit it on fire, yes!”
After careful review of the record, this court concludes the district court did
not clearly err in finding Rupert’s arson was (at least) an attempt to destroy the Sprint
store.
This court affirms Rupert’s sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
*******
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
1
Hon. Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.
-2-