United States v. George Ashby ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1609
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
George Patrick Ashby
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: February 13, 2023
Filed: April 20, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
George Patrick Ashby pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled
substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The district
court1 sentenced him to 360 months in prison. He appeals his sentence. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Ashby argues his bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Thigpen, 848 F.3d 841, 847 (8th Cir. 2017). An
abuse of discretion occurs when the court “fails to consider a relevant factor that
should have received significant weight,” “gives significant weight to an improper
or irrelevant factor,” or makes a “clear error of judgment” in weighing appropriate
factors. United States v. Funke, 846 F.3d 998, 1000 (8th Cir. 2017). “[I]t will be
the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above,
or below the applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Ashby believes the court failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating
factors, including his remorse, contrition, desire for rehabilitation, age, life
expectancy, military service, substance abuse problems, physical and mental health,
and lack of recent criminal history. The district court addressed these factors in
detail at sentencing. But it also weighed them against his involvement in “a very
large drug conspiracy” with controlled substances that “destroy lives.” It noted that
the “damage done to society by the drug distribution, especially in these large
quantities” is “incalculable.” The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors. That it gave “some factors less weight” than Ashby prefers “does
not justify reversal.” United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873, 883 (8th Cir. 2010).
See United States v. Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that the
“district court’s choice to assign relatively greater weight to the nature and
circumstances of the offense than to the mitigating personal characteristics of the
defendant” is “well within” the judge’s “wide latitude”).
1
The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
-2-
The district court did not abuse its discretion.
*******
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-