United States v. Daniel McNeal , 301 F. App'x 573 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3640
    ___________
    United States of America,          *
    *
    Appellee,              *
    *
    v.                           * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Daniel McNeal, also known as       * District of Minnesota.
    Diamond, also known as Daddy,      *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.             *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 1, 2008
    Filed: December 4, 2008
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Daniel McNeal pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18
    U.S.C. § 1591, and transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual
    activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Determining that he qualified as a career
    offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) and that a downward departure was not warranted,
    the district court1 sentenced McNeal to a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 293
    1
    The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
    Minnesota.
    months in prison. McNeal appeals, arguing that the court did not properly consider
    the nature and circumstances of his offenses or his history and characteristics.
    Contrary to this argument, the record reflects that the district court made “an
    individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” specifically addressing all
    of McNeal’s proffered information in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
    sentencing factors, and we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See Gall
    v. United States, 
    128 S. Ct. 586
    , 597 (2007) (in reviewing sentence for abuse of
    discretion, appeals court must first ensure there was no significant procedural error,
    and then assess substantive reasonableness of sentence); United States v. Haack, 
    403 F.3d 997
    , 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (listing circumstances that may warrant finding of
    abuse of discretion).
    Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We deny McNeal’s motions to expand
    the record and to file a pro se brief supplementing his counsel’s brief, see United
    States v. Clark, 
    409 F.3d 1039
    , 1041 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3640

Citation Numbers: 301 F. App'x 573

Judges: Melloy, Colloton, Shepherd

Filed Date: 12/4/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024