*1 918 fаct, specifically the district recog- America, UNITED longer the Guidelines are no STATES
nized Appellant, mandatory, sentencing it was stating Lee goals considering statutory all after sentencing finding nothing to indicate MEDEARIS, Appellee. Mark A. Lee’s case was unusual different from Thus, drug conspiracies. the district No. 05-2991. calculating not err in crimi- court did Lee’s Appeals, United States Court of history nal treat did not the Guidelines Eighth Circuit. mandatory. 19, April Submitted: 2006. Finally, argues Lee Guidelines, weight undue to the gave 27, Filed: June 2006. depart therefrom refusing though even departures longer no are to cir limited formerly mandatory
cumstances permissible
Guidelines deemed bases
departure. Lee also contends his sen
tence, calculated under the “Crack Cocaine
Guidelines,” necessary than
promote goals 3553(a), 18of U.S.C.
resulting sentencing disparity and an
unreasonable sentence. Even after the
Supreme ruling Court’s United States v.
Booker, 220, 738, 543 125 S.Ct. 160 (2005),
L.Ed.2d 621 discretionary “[t]he not to depart
decision
continues to be appeal.” unreviewable on Anderson,
United States v. 446 F.3d (8th Cir.2006). Also, within sentences “presumptively Guidelines are Lincoln,
reasonable.” United States v.
413 F.3d Finally,
“sentencing within the Guidelines based on crack-powder disparity [cocaine] is not
inherently unreasonable.” United States Cawthorn, (8th 429 F.3d Cir.
2005). The properly ana
lyzed the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. at a arriving sen reasonable affirm
tence in this case. Accordingly, we respects.
in all *2 MO, Coatney, argued, Springfield,
Jason appellee. for ARNOLD, LAY,
Before and COLLOTON, Judges. Circuit
ARNOLD, Judge. Circuit pleaded guilty posses- Mark Medearis by unlawful of a sion a firearm an user substance, see 18 U.S.C. controlled 922(g)(3), unregistered of an possession shotgun, short-barreled see U.S.C. 5841, 5845(a), 5861(d), possession §§ and firearm, 922(j). a see 18 U.S.C. stolen court sentenced Mr. Medearis The district probation. five The years cоntending that the sen- appeals, for re- tence unreasonable. We remand sentencing. warrant, local and
Pursuant valid searched Mr. Medearis’s federal officials they propеrty. stolen There premises for found, items, among short-barreled shotgun registered to Mr. that was not Regis- Medearis in the National Firearms as required Transfer Record tration and 5845(a)(1), 30- Savage 5841 and riflе that had been 06 caliber bolt-action stolen, marijuana reported some admit- Mr. Medearis methamphetamine. officials that he ted to law-enforcement indicted, being he drugs. both Aftеr used to all pleaded guilty counts. pre- prepared
The
office
Mr. Me-
report
that calculated
forty-six to
sentencing range as
dearis’s
The
fifty-seven
imprisonment.
months’
sentencing first noted the
court at
mentioned that
range, but then
applicable
family
many of Medearis’s friends and
court,
contend-
members had written
life
turned his
ing that Mr. Medearis had
argued, Asst.
Philip
Koppe,
M.
U.S.
asking
form of com-
around
for some
(Todd
Graves,
P.
Atty.,
City,
Kansas
MO
incarceration.
munity alternative to
MO,
Atty.,
City,
Angela C.
Kansas
it
these letters
believed
court stated
Atty., Springfield,
Hasty, Spec. Asst. U.S.
had
Mr. Medearis
brief),
convinced that
MO,
appellant.
and was
on the
reformed;
acknowledged
indeed
the ser-
proposed
make the
sentence a reason-
offenses,
of Mr.
iousness
but
able one.
id.
See
that incarceration was not
concluded
nec-
*3
Mr. Medearis contends that
the
essary
keep
to
Mr. Medearis from re-of-
government’s position is that any sentence
fending. Thе court therefore sentenced
that varies
the sentencing guidelines
from
probation
of
years
Mr. Medearis to five
is unreasonable. We do not
the
construe
count,
concurrently.
to
each
be served
government’s argument to be so
as
broad
government argues
ap
on
Instead,
government
that.
the
merely ar
that the
court
peal
district
abused its dis
gues that
give
the district сourt should
the
sentencing
in
Mr.
to
cretion
Medearis
sentencing guidelines
weight
considerable
probation. When the district court has
when
the
deciding
ultimate
sentence
correctly
guidelines
the
calculated
sen
Indeed,
should
imposed.
argument
be
here,
only
tencing range, as it did
the
correct,
3553(a)(4)
entirely
§
seems
since
remaining issue is whether the ultimate
requires courts to considеr
guidelines
the
is
v.
sentence
reasonable. United States
sentencing
when
But
defendant.
Booker,
220, 261-62,
543 U.S.
125 S.Ct.
to
guidelines
consider the
to
is not
be
(2005).
738,
who of his life. district the turnaround 3553(a)(6). Other de- duct.” 18 U.S.C. crimes were court noted Medearis’ guilty who to the conduct plead fendants the that if this was “serious” and observed will almost that Mr. Medearis admitted consider, Medearis should be only factor to include certainly sentences receive guidelines range. How- sentenced in the term of incarсeration. some 3553(a) ever, considering the other factors, incar- the district court concluded may rehabilitation While to Me- required not deter weight, some it cannot ceration was well entitled to be subsequent crimes committing dearis from trump to all the other consider- be allowed 3553(a). In the protect public. to the written therefore or ations listed in We Reasons,” thе district court imposed an “Statement of that the district court conclude case, depart from the observed the decision to this we unreasonable sentence the “lack of guidеlines was based on the of the district judgment vacate re-offending, to defendant from re-sentencing consistent need deter and remand for characteristics, strong his personal his opinion. with family community support, the protect
lack to public.” of a need the precisely
The district court followed the
procedure our court. After required advisory guideline
calculating Medearis’ imprison- to 57
range to be 46 months’
ment, then “all the court considered 3553(a) §in
factors set forth to determine
whether under the impose
guidelines non-guidelines or a sentence.”
Haack, at 1003. A 403 F.3d district
bears from obligation depart when a review compels a factors different sen- obligation give
tence. Our court’s court’s determination same
amount resulting of deference whether the than, than,
sentence is less
guidelines range.
Sentencing unique courts have the abili-
ty to appraise the evidence personally A
assess a defendant. of the reversal court’s reasonable sentence upon
case encroaches the district court’s
discretion so. to do
I would affirm Medearis’ sentence. America,
UNITED STATES of
Appellee,
Ray Johnny KRAKLIO, Appellant.
No. 06-1369. Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit. May
Submitted: 2006.
Filed: June 2006.
Rehearing Rehearing En Banc Aug.
Denied 2006.* Messina, Moines, IA, argued,
John Des appellant. Whitaker, AUSA, Matthew G. argued, (Richard Moines, Des IA D. Westphal, * Judge participate Colloton did not con- sideration or of this decision matter.