Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01458/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01458-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Joseph McDonnell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1458

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Michael Joseph McDonnell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant, *

----------------------

*

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Michael Joseph McDonnell, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2007

Filed: February 13, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-1458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2007 Entry ID: 3278229
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

Michael McDonnell appeals the concurrent 235-month prison terms imposed

by the district court1

 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, 126 S. Ct. 840 (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.

Appellate Case: 06-1458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2007 Entry ID: 3278229
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1458 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/13/2007 Entry ID: 3278229