United States v. Darryl Walker

314 F. App'x 909
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 17, 2009
Docket07-3721
StatusUnpublished

This text of 314 F. App'x 909 (United States v. Darryl Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Darryl Walker, 314 F. App'x 909 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Walker appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. On appeal, Walker seeks a remand for resentencing in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), and Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), both decided after his sentencing. We decline to remand for resentencing, and we affirm.

We find nothing in Kimbrough to warrant a remand for resentencing. See Kim-brough, 128 S.Ct. at 564 (holding that cocaine Guidelines, like all other Guidelines, are advisory only); United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir.2008) (Kimbrough held that sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by considering disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences). Likewise, we conclude that a remand under Gall is not required because there is no indication in the record that the district court applied an “extraordinary circumstances” standard. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 594-95 (rejecting appellate court’s requirement of extraordinary circumstances to support extraordinary variance, but allowing court to take degree of vari- *910 anee into account and consider extent of deviation from Guidelines).

We also conclude that Walker’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Phelps, 586 F.3d 862, 869 (8th Cir.2008) (defendant does not forfeit attack on substantive reasonableness of sentence by failing to object in district court; substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1390, — L.Ed.2d. - (2009); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.2005) (abuse of discretion occurs if court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Lee
586 F.3d 859 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
Kimbrough v. United States
552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Roberson
517 F.3d 990 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Jason Long Soldier
431 F.3d 1120 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
314 F. App'x 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-darryl-walker-ca8-2009.