United States v. James Patterson ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-1576
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    James Patterson,                         *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 22, 2006
    Filed: December 28, 2006
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    James Patterson pleaded guilty to possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18
    U.S.C. § 922(j). The district court1 calculated an advisory Guidelines imprisonment
    range of 10-16 months, and sentenced Patterson to 12 months and one day in prison
    and three years of supervised release. On appeal Patterson argues, citing United States
    v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment
    right to a jury trial by enhancing the applicable Guidelines range based on his
    possession of three stolen firearms, see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A).
    1
    The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    We reject Patterson’s argument, see United States v. Salter, 
    418 F.3d 860
    , 862
    (8th Cir. 2005) (after Booker, district court may enhance sentence based on judge-
    found facts if court views Guidelines as advisory), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 1399
    (2006); and further conclude that Patterson’s sentence was not unreasonable, see
    
    Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-62
    (appellate courts must review sentences for
    unreasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 
    413 F.3d 716
    , 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence
    within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut
    that presumption), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 840
    (2005).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1576

Judges: Murphy, Bye, Melloy

Filed Date: 12/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024