Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01480/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01480-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Floyd Shaw
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1480

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Charles Floyd Shaw, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 21, 2007

Filed: November 28, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Shaw pleaded guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine, knowing it would

be used to manufacture a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2).

The district court1

 sentenced Shaw to 30 months in prison, which was at the bottom

of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, Shaw argues that the district court

abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a downward departure based on

overstated criminal history, and that a sentence below the Guidelines range would

have been reasonable. We reject these arguments and affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-1480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2007 Entry ID: 3376445
-2-

Because Shaw does not argue--and the record does not indicate--that the district

court failed to recognize it had authority to depart from the Guidelines, its

discretionary denial of Shaw’s motion is unreviewable. See United States v. Carter,

481 F.3d 601, 607 (8th Cir.), petitions for cert. filed, (U.S. July 11, 2007 & Sept. 7,

2007) (Nos. 07-5323, 07-330). Further, Shaw’s sentence is not unreasonable. See

United States v. Garlewicz, 493 F.3d 933, 938 (8th Cir. 2007) (presumption of

reasonableness is accorded sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range);

United States v. Garate, 482 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir.) (criminal history may support

variance as part of defendant’s history and characteristics under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1), but primary reliance on factors already considered by Guidelines will

not support substantial variance unless they are present in unusual degree), petition

for cert. filed, (U.S. June 28, 2007) (No. 07-5051); United States v. Rouillard, 474

F.3d 551, 558 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Significant variances based on conduct accounted for

in the Guidelines results in unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with

similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.”).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2007 Entry ID: 3376445