United States v. Terry Williams , 358 F. App'x 771 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3718
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Eastern
    v.                                 * District of Arkansas.
    *
    Terry Lamont Williams,                   *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 14, 2009
    Filed: January 5, 2010
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Terry Williams appeals from his sentence of 235 months' imprisonment for
    aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute it. See
    21 U.S.C. § 841, 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). He presents two issues for our consideration.
    Mr. Williams argues first that he was entitled to a departure from his guidelines
    range of 235 to 293 months because his criminal history category over-represented the
    seriousness of his criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1). He asks us to
    characterize the district court's1 denial of his motion for a downward departure as a
    "procedural error" that requires a de novo review under Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). We decline this invitation because what Gall requires, as relevant here,
    is that a reviewing court decide as a matter of law whether a sentencing court correctly
    determined the guidelines range applicable to a defendant's circumstances, 
    id., and there
    is no dispute that the district court did that in this case. The decision whether to
    depart from the guidelines is entirely distinct and separate from the determination of
    the appropriate guidelines range, and we may not review a district court's refusal to
    grant a motion for a downward departure absent a showing of the district court's
    unconstitutional motive or a failure on its part to recognize its legal authority to
    depart. United States v. Saddler, 
    538 F.3d 879
    , 889 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 770
    (2008). Since Mr. Williams does not maintain that either of these
    conditions is present here, his appeal on this point necessarily fails.
    We find equally meritless Mr. Williams's contention that the district court
    should have varied from the guidelines range because of his disadvantaged youth and
    because he was unlikely to offend again. A complaint about a district court's failure
    to give a sentence outside the guidelines is, at bottom, merely an assertion that the
    sentence is unreasonable. When we review a sentence for reasonableness, we will
    reverse only if a district court abused its discretion, that is, if in fixing the sentence the
    court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have been given significant
    weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a
    clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. United States v.
    Thundershield, 
    474 F.3d 503
    , 509-10 (8th Cir. 2007). We presume, moreover, that
    a sentence is reasonable if, as here, it is within the guidelines range. United States v.
    Raplinger, 
    555 F.3d 687
    , 695 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 
    129 S. Ct. 2814
    (2009).
    In imposing the present sentence, the district court clearly had the required
    1
    The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    considerations outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in mind, did not take improper matters
    into account, and carefully weighed the evidence that Mr. Williams offered in
    mitigation at the sentencing hearing. That evidence was both relevant and cogent but
    nothing about it compelled the district court to choose a lesser sentence than it gave
    or rendered its sentence unreasonable. We thus see no abuse of discretion here.
    Affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-3718

Citation Numbers: 358 F. App'x 771

Judges: Loken, Arnold, Benton

Filed Date: 1/5/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024