United States v. Jeffrey Bracy

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jeffrey Bracy

366 F. App'x 700

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

Docket08-3080

StatusUnpublished

This text of 366 F. App'x 700 (United States v. Jeffrey Bracy) 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. Jeffrey Bracy, 366 F. App'x 700 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Jeffrey Bracy pled guilty to a weapon offense, the district court 1 varied upward from the advisory Guidelines sentencing range and imposed a sentence of 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Bracy ar-r gues that the district court committed procedural error by failing to properly consider appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, that the sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to honor its plea-agreement promise to recommend a sentence of time served.

We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant *701 procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). We find no procedural error in this case. See United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2008) (if district court references some considerations contained in § 3553(a), this court is ordinarily satisfied that court was aware of contents of statute). We also find that the sentence was not unreasonable, given the district court’s consideration of Bracy’s mental-health issues, substance abuse, serious criminal history, need for treatment in prison, and the need to protect the public from his further crimes. See United States v. Ruvalcava-Perez, 561 F.3d 883, 887 (8th Cir.2009) (finding extent of variance reasonable where sentencing court considered defendant’s prior criminal conduct and need to protect society).

Finally, the government did not breach the plea agreement: Bracy tested positive for illegal substances after he entered into the plea agreement, which excused the government from its promise to recommend a sentence of time served. Further, Bracy did not argue below that the government breached the plea agreement, and in these circumstances, no plain error occurred. See Puckett v. United States, — U.S.—,—, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1428, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, 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

PER CURIAM.

After Jeffrey Bracy pled guilty to a weapon offense, the district court 1 varied upward from the advisory Guidelines sentencing range and imposed a sentence of 48 months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Bracy ar-r gues that the district court committed procedural error by failing to properly consider appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, that the sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to honor its plea-agreement promise to recommend a sentence of time served.

We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant *701 procedural error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc). We find no procedural error in this case. See United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2008) (if district court references some considerations contained in § 3553(a), this court is ordinarily satisfied that court was aware of contents of statute). We also find that the sentence was not unreasonable, given the district court’s consideration of Bracy’s mental-health issues, substance abuse, serious criminal history, need for treatment in prison, and the need to protect the public from his further crimes. See United States v. Ruvalcava-Perez, 561 F.3d 883, 887 (8th Cir.2009) (finding extent of variance reasonable where sentencing court considered defendant’s prior criminal conduct and need to protect society).

Finally, the government did not breach the plea agreement: Bracy tested positive for illegal substances after he entered into the plea agreement, which excused the government from its promise to recommend a sentence of time served. Further, Bracy did not argue below that the government breached the plea agreement, and in these circumstances, no plain error occurred. See Puckett v. United States, — U.S.—,—, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1428, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 F. App'x 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jeffrey-bracy-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack