United States v. Michael J. McDonnell

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Michael J. McDonnell

216 F. App'x 612

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

Docket06-1458

StatusUnpublished

This text of 216 F. App'x 612 (United States v. Michael J. McDonnell) 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. Michael J. McDonnell, 216 F. App'x 612 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*613 PER CURIAM.

Michael McDonnell appeals the concurrent 235-month prison terms imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to two separate indictments charging him with drug crimes. We affirm.

We reject McDonnell’s argument that the district court took an impermissible view of its ability to sentence McDonnell outside the advisory range calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Rather, the district court carefully followed this court’s jurisprudence in calculating the advisory Guidelines range and then determining whether a sentence outside the range was warranted by the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Maurstad, 454 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir.2006) (district court should calculate Guidelines range, determine if departure is warranted under Guidelines, then consider sentencing factors in § 3553(a) and impose reasonable sentence).

We also conclude McDonnell has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence imposed within the advisory Guidelines range; the court took into account all of McDonnell’s personal circumstances in arriving at the sentence imposed, and we see no basis for concluding that it failed to give appropriate weight to these factors. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (when sentence is within Guidelines range, defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness; burden is satisfied by showing, with reference to § 3553(a), that district court based sentence on improper or irrelevant factor or failed to consider relevant factor), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005). Further, even if McDonnell’s within Guidelines sentence was not presumed to be reasonable under our precedents, we would still find that the district court acted reasonably in imposing the sentence of 235 months in prison.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

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

*613 PER CURIAM.

Michael McDonnell appeals the concurrent 235-month prison terms imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to two separate indictments charging him with drug crimes. We affirm.

We reject McDonnell’s argument that the district court took an impermissible view of its ability to sentence McDonnell outside the advisory range calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Rather, the district court carefully followed this court’s jurisprudence in calculating the advisory Guidelines range and then determining whether a sentence outside the range was warranted by the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Maurstad, 454 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir.2006) (district court should calculate Guidelines range, determine if departure is warranted under Guidelines, then consider sentencing factors in § 3553(a) and impose reasonable sentence).

We also conclude McDonnell has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence imposed within the advisory Guidelines range; the court took into account all of McDonnell’s personal circumstances in arriving at the sentence imposed, and we see no basis for concluding that it failed to give appropriate weight to these factors. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (when sentence is within Guidelines range, defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness; burden is satisfied by showing, with reference to § 3553(a), that district court based sentence on improper or irrelevant factor or failed to consider relevant factor), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005). Further, even if McDonnell’s within Guidelines sentence was not presumed to be reasonable under our precedents, we would still find that the district court acted reasonably in imposing the sentence of 235 months in prison.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 F. App'x 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-j-mcdonnell-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack