Case ID: f-appx_556/html/0571-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cecil ALDRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-2702.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2014.
    Filed: May 30, 2014.
    Stephanie Mazzanti, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cameron Charles Mccree, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cecil Aldridge, Pollock, LA, pro se.
    Jack R. Kearney, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Cecil Aldridge appeals his within-Guidelines-range sentence of 192 months, following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Aldridge asserts the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a). We have carefully reviewed the record, see United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir.2011) (reviewing district court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion), and find the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors, see United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981, 988 (8th Cir.2011) (finding the district court’s § 3553(a) explanation was sufficient and no particular recitation was necessary), and did not impose an unreasonable sentence, see United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir.2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to sentence within the Guidelines range). Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.