Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04170/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio L. McGee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4170

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Antonio L. McGee, also known as *

Tonio, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2006

Filed: January 8, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio McGee appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams

of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For reversal, McGee contends the

district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence that was greater than

necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Appellate Case: 05-4170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2007 Entry ID: 3265397
-2-

We reject McGee’s argument. The court noted McGee’s history of selling

crack cocaine, and McGee’s background and failure to avail himself of the

opportunities he had been given to abide by the law; the court explained that, although

the sentence was “stiff,” the court was concerned that McGee might re-offend and

endanger the public. Further, the court stated that the sentence would avoid

sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of

offense and history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(C) (protect public from

further crimes of defendant), (a)(6) (avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct);

United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry

is whether court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s

review of those factors leads it to conclude that they support finding of

reasonableness); United States v. Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2005)

(nothing in § 3553(a) requires “robotic incantations” that each factor was considered).

Significantly, the 262-month prison sentence was at the low end of the

undisputed Guidelines range, and McGee has not rebutted--nor can we see a basis for

rebutting--the resulting presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Tobacco,

428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be

unreasonable if district court (1) failed to consider relevant fact that should have

received significant weight; (2) gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant

factor; or (3) considered only appropriate factors, but in weighing those factors

committed clear error of judgment); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18

(8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant

bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840

(2005).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2007 Entry ID: 3265397