United States v. Terron Brown , 232 F. App'x 622 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-3823
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Terron Brown, also known                 *
    as T-Rex,                                * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: August 24, 2007
    Filed: August 27, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Terron Brown appeals the sentence of 292 months’ imprisonment imposed by
    the district court1 following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 1.5
    kilograms of crack cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii)
    and 846. This court has vacated Brown’s sentence and remanded for resentencing on
    two prior occasions. See United States v. Brown, 
    453 F.3d 1024
    , 1026-27 (8th Cir.
    2006); United States v. Brown, 
    414 F.3d 976
     (8th Cir. 2005). On this appeal, Brown
    1
    The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of
    Nebraska.
    argues that the district court improperly applied a presumption of reasonableness to
    the advisory guidelines range and failed to exercise its discretion in determining the
    sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the district court properly recognized
    its responsibilities under United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), and its
    discretion under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). We do apply a presumption of reasonableness
    on appeal to a sentence within the guideline range, see Rita v. United States, 
    127 S. Ct. 2456
    , 2462-65 (2007); United States v. Lincoln, 
    413 F.3d 716
    , 717 (8th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    546 U.S. 1081
     (2005), and we conclude that Brown’s sentence is not
    unreasonable.
    Brown also argues that this court improperly requires district courts to offer an
    “appropriate justification” by reference to § 3553(a) to support a variance from the
    guidelines range. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case that presents a
    related question, see Gall v. United States, 
    127 S. Ct. 2933
     (2007), but the requirement
    of an “appropriate justification” for a variance remains the law of this circuit. See
    United States v. Gonzalez-Alvarado, 
    477 F.3d 648
    , 650 (8th Cir. 2007). We decline
    to address Brown’s pro se supplemental filing, see United States v. Dierling, 
    131 F.3d 722
    , 734 n.7 (8th Cir. 1997), and deny his request for relief.
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -2-