United States v. Christian Copeland ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-1268
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Christian Nero Copeland
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
    ____________
    Submitted: November 16, 2020
    Filed: December 31, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Christian Nero Copeland pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute
    crack cocaine, discharging a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, and forfeiture
    of currency and a firearm in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c), (d); 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 841(b)(1), 853; and 
    28 U.S.C. § 2461
    (c). The district court1 sentenced
    him to 60 months in prison and five years of supervised release. After serving his
    sentence, he violated the conditions of his supervised release. The court revoked his
    release, sentencing him to 18 months in prison and five years of supervised release.
    He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , this court affirms.
    Copeland claims the district court failed to properly weigh the sentencing
    factors and imposed an unreasonable sentence. This court reviews “a district court’s
    revocation sentence using the same standards applied to initial sentencing
    decisions.” United States v. Parker, 
    669 Fed. Appx. 323
    , 324 (8th Cir. 2016). “A
    sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive
    reasonableness on appeal.” United States v. Perkins, 
    526 F.3d 1107
    , 1110 (8th Cir.
    2008).
    Copeland believes the district court abused its discretion “when it failed to
    consider the excess time that Copeland had already served for his original offense
    and placed punishment over the rehabilitative goals that underly supervised release.”
    This argument is without merit. Imposing a within-guidelines sentence, the district
    court considered each of the § 3553(a) factors, especially the fact that Copeland
    “pose[d] a danger to society.” See United States v. Franklin, 
    397 F.3d 604
    , 607 (8th
    Cir. 2005) (“[E]vidence that the district court was aware of the relevant § 3553(a)
    factors required to be considered can be inferred from the record.”). The district
    court has “wide latitude to weigh the section 3553(a) factors in each case and assign
    some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.”
    United States v. Campbell, 
    976 F.3d 775
    , 778 (8th Cir. 2020). “The mere fact that a
    1
    The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska, now deceased.
    -2-
    court could have weighed the sentencing factors differently does not amount to an
    abuse of discretion.” 
    Id.
    *******
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1268

Filed Date: 12/31/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/31/2020