United States v. Jacky Xiong ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-3590
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jacky Xiong
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
    ____________
    Submitted: October 15, 2018
    Filed: December 13, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jacky Xiong challenges the 188-month prison sentence he received after
    pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Because his
    within-Guidelines-range sentence was adequately explained and is substantively
    reasonable, we affirm.
    First, the district court1 fully explained why it sentenced Xiong to 188 months
    in prison. According to the court, the sentence was “sufficient, but not more than
    necessary,” to account for Xiong’s extensive criminal history and the severity of his
    offense. The court acknowledged that Xiong had accepted responsibility, but it
    stressed that his criminal record was “pretty bad” and that, despite being incarcerated
    several times before, he “ha[d not] changed [his] behavior.” The sentence needed to
    be “substantial,” the court stated, because of the large amount of methamphetamine
    Xiong had trafficked and the fact that the trafficking did not end until months after
    the police first discovered drugs at his home and business. This explanation was
    sufficient “to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception
    of fair sentencing,” Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 50 (2007), which is all that we
    require, see United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 
    828 F.3d 668
    , 670–71 (8th Cir. 2016).
    Second, Xiong’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v.
    Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that we review the
    substantive reasonableness of a sentence under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion
    standard” (citation omitted)). Within-Guidelines-range sentences are entitled to a
    presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Sharkey, 
    895 F.3d 1077
    , 1080–81
    (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). The district court’s explanation, including its discussion
    of the facts of this case and the statutory sentencing factors, gives us no reason to
    doubt the application of the presumption here.
    Xiong believes the district court should have placed greater weight on several
    mitigating factors, including his methamphetamine and gambling addictions. But the
    court mentioned these factors during Xiong’s sentencing hearing and gave them the
    weight it thought they deserved. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so. See
    United States v. King, 
    898 F.3d 797
    , 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s
    1
    The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    decision not to weigh mitigating factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have
    preferred does not justify reversal.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
    We affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-3590

Filed Date: 12/13/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2018