United States v. James Hubbell ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 15-2649
    ___________________________
    United States of America,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    James Paul Hubbell,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
    ____________
    Submitted: April 15, 2016
    Filed: August 9, 2016
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and MOODY,1 District Judge.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    James Paul Hubbell pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute
    methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. The
    1
    The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
    district court2 sentenced Hubbell to 140 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Hubbell
    argues that the court erred in denying a downward adjustment under the advisory
    guidelines for a mitigating role in the offense. He also contends that his sentence is
    substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
    Beginning around June 2014, Hubbell agreed with Michael Joslin and others
    to distribute methamphetamine in both Riverside and Iowa City, Iowa. Between
    August 2014 and December 2014, an undercover officer and a confidential source
    made multiple controlled purchases of purported or actual methamphetamine from
    Hubbell. During a transaction in December, law enforcement officers took Hubbell
    into custody. After officers advised Hubbell of his rights, he admitted to distributing
    methamphetamine for approximately six months and stated that his main source of
    supply was Joslin.
    A grand jury charged Hubbell with one count of conspiracy to distribute
    methamphetamine. Hubbell entered into a plea agreement with the government, and
    pleaded guilty to that count. Hubbell admitted to obtaining, purchasing, and
    distributing at least 100 grams of actual methamphetamine. His criminal history
    included two prior convictions for drug trafficking, as well as convictions for drunk
    driving, possession of marijuana (thrice), domestic abuse assault, domestic assault
    causing injury while displaying a dangerous weapon, trespass (twice), and theft.
    At sentencing, the district court found that Hubbell was responsible for a
    quantity of drugs that resulted in a base offense level of 30 under the advisory
    guideline. The court also found that Hubbell qualified as a career offender based on
    the two prior drug-trafficking convictions. Because the career-offender guideline
    2
    The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
    Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    provided for a higher offense level of 32, the court applied that level in accordance
    with USSG § 4B1.1(b).
    Hubbell asserted that he was entitled to a downward adjustment under USSG
    § 3B1.2 for playing a minor role in the conspiracy. The district court, after noting
    that it might be “an academic question,” found that the record did not support a
    downward adjustment for a mitigating role in the offense.
    After subtracting three offense levels for acceptance of responsibility from the
    career-offender offense level of 32, the court arrived at a total offense level of 29.
    The court then concluded that criminal history category VI, which applied because
    of Hubbell’s career-offender status, overstated Hubbell’s history, and departed
    downward to category V. That resulted in a sentencing range of 140 to 175 months’
    imprisonment. The court sentenced Hubbell to 140 months in prison and three years
    of supervised release.
    Hubbell challenges the sentence imposed by the district court. Hubbell first
    contends that the district court procedurally erred in denying a downward adjustment
    under the advisory guidelines for a mitigating role in the offense. See USSG § 3B1.2.
    But as the district court suggested, the applicability of the adjustment is an academic
    question. When a defendant is sentenced as a career offender, adjustments for role
    in the offense under Chapter Three, Part B do not apply. See USSG § 4B1.1; United
    States v. Warren, 
    361 F.3d 1055
    , 1058 (8th Cir. 2004). Whether or not Hubbell
    qualified for a mitigating role adjustment, his offense level (before considering
    acceptance of responsibility) was set at 32 by the career-offender guideline. It is
    therefore unnecessary to address Hubbell’s claim of procedural error.
    Hubbell also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
    the district court improperly weighed his prior criminal history, his culpability
    relative to Joslin, and the likelihood that Hubbell would commit further crimes. See
    -3-
    18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Hubbell asserts that his prior convictions involved small-scale
    drug dealing and that he should not be treated as a career offender. We review the
    substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion
    standard.” Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007). We presume that a sentence
    within the advisory guideline range is reasonable. United States v. Ruelas-Mendez,
    
    556 F.3d 655
    , 657 (8th Cir. 2009); see Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 347
    (2007).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion. The court “has wide latitude to
    weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than
    others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United States v. Bridges, 
    569 F.3d 374
    , 379 (8th Cir. 2009). The court heard and considered Hubbell’s arguments about
    his prior convictions, his relative culpability, and the asserted unlikelihood of
    recidivism. The court took into account the nature of Hubbell’s criminal history by
    departing downward, but also properly considered the need to avoid unwarranted
    sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. See 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a)(6). The court reasonably concluded that a sentence at the bottom of the
    post-departure guideline range was appropriate, given the seriousness of Hubbell’s
    offense and his criminal history.
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-2649

Judges: Colloton, Shepherd, Moody

Filed Date: 8/9/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024