United States v. Robert L. Williams , 180 F. App'x 615 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ________________
    No. 05-2587
    ________________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    *      Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 *      District Court for the District of
    *      Nebraska.
    Robert L. Williams,                      *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ________________
    Submitted: March 13, 2006
    Filed: May 12, 2006
    ________________
    Before COLLOTON, HEANEY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ________________
    PER CURIAM.
    Robert L. Williams pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced Williams to 41
    months’ imprisonment. Williams appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court
    gave undue weight to the United States Sentencing Guidelines or improperly treated
    them as mandatory in violation of United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), and
    1
    The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska.
    that the district court improperly balanced the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
    We affirm.
    A sentence falling within the advisory guidelines sentencing range is
    presumptively reasonable and will be disturbed only if the sentencing court abused
    its discretion by giving significant weight to an improper factor, failing to consider
    a factor that deserved significant weight or committing a clear error in judgment when
    weighing appropriate factors. United States v. Sebastian, 
    436 F.3d 913
    , 915 (2006).
    We do not require “‘robotic incantations’ that each statutory factor has been
    considered.” United States v. Lamoreaux, 
    422 F.3d 750
    , 756 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation
    omitted). Instead, it is enough if it is clear that the guidelines were applied in an
    advisory fashion and that the district court appropriately considered the non-
    guidelines factors. 
    Id. As calculated
    by the district court, Williams’s advisory guidelines sentencing
    range was 41 to 57 months. Williams’s 41-month sentence falls at the low end of that
    range and is presumptively reasonable. Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse
    of discretion. The record does not suggest that the district court applied the
    guidelines in a mandatory fashion or gave them undue weight. Instead, the district
    court accepted a plea agreement in which the United States agreed to recommend a
    sentence at the low end of the guidelines sentencing range, and the district court gave
    Williams just such a sentence. It is also clear that the district court considered factors
    beyond the guidelines sentencing range. Specifically, the district court heard
    argument concerning Williams’s personal characteristics (e.g., age and health). The
    district court opined, however, that a lengthier sentence (as opposed to the probation
    requested by Williams) was appropriate because lighter sentences served by Williams
    previously had proven to be an insufficient deterrent and because Williams
    knowingly possessed firearms for several years despite his felon status. The record
    further reflects that, but for the plea agreement, the district court would have
    sentenced Williams to an even longer period of imprisonment.
    -2-
    As we find that the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines
    range, considered the non-guidelines factors and arrived at a reasonable sentence, we
    affirm.
    _____________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-2587

Citation Numbers: 180 F. App'x 615

Filed Date: 5/12/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023