United States v. Robert Freeman
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12864
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Freeman pled guilty to multiple methamphetamine distribution counts and a firearm charge tied to drug trafficking.
- District court sentenced Freeman to 110 months on drug counts and 60 months on the firearm count, to be served consecutively.
- PSR attributed 31.53 grams of methamphetamine (actual) to Freeman based on several sales and cash conversion.
- Freeman objected to the PSR’s methamphetamine total and the cash-to-drug conversion; the court accepted the PSR’s calculations for sentencing.
- The district court sentenced Freeman at the bottom of the Guidelines range for drugs and at the statutory minimum for the firearm count, and Freeman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error in ruling on PSR objections | Freeman (Freeman) argues the district court failed to rule on his PSR objections. | Freeman contends the court did not address the objections to PSR calculations. | Harmless error; no impact on outcome; affirmed. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 170-month sentence | Freeman asserts the sentence is substantively unreasonable. | District court did not abuse discretion given 170-month total within range. | Sentence affirmed; within guidelines range and reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barker, 556 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (review for procedural error in sentencing; factual findings reviewed for clear error; guidelines de novo)
- United States v. Woods, 670 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2012) (harmless error when guidelines computation does not affect outcome)
- United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 2010) (unobjected-to PSR paragraphs may be used for sentencing)
- United States v. Alvizo-Trujillo, 521 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantive review of within-range sentence under abuse of discretion)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing decisions; parsimony principle context)
- United States v. Norris, 685 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Zastrow, 534 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2008) (mechanical recitation of §3553(a) factors not required)
- United States v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2008) (reversal not warranted merely because a different sentence might be reasonable)