Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02763/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02763-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lamarr Dremell Parks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2763

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Lamarr Dremell Parks, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2007

Filed: August 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lamarr Dremell Parks (Parks) appeals the concurrent 97-month prison

sentences imposed by the district court1

 after Parks pled guilty to three counts of

distributing and aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet

of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 860, and 18 U.S.C.

§ 2. Parks’s challenge is based on the 100 to 1 ratio for quantities of powder cocaine

and crack cocaine reflected in the Guidelines sentencing ranges for the two drugs.

Parks argues the district court erred by failing to impose a sentence below the advisory

Appellate Case: 06-2763 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2007 Entry ID: 3342848
-2-

Guidelines range on the basis of this disparity, and Parks’s sentence is unreasonable

in light of the particular facts of his crack cocaine transactions.

Parks’s sentencing-disparity argument is foreclosed by United States v. Spears,

469 F.3d 1166, 1176 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (concluding neither United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), nor 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) authorizes district courts to

reject the 100 to 1 ratio), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Mar. 2, 2007) (No. 06-9864).

Further, we conclude Parks’s sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is not

unreasonable because the district court considered only relevant factors, including

Parks’s history and characteristics, as well as Parks’s argument at sentencing

regarding the nature of his offenses, and gave such factors appropriate weight. See

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining a sentence

is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which may occur if the court failed to consider a

relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight

to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but

committed a clear error of judgment in weighing them); see also United States v.

Johnson, 474 F.3d 515, 522 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding sentence for conspiring to

distribute crack cocaine was not unreasonable when the court refused to consider the

disparity between penalties for distributing crack versus powder cocaine under the

Guidelines; neither Booker nor § 3553(a) authorizes district courts to reject the 100

to 1 quantity ratio mandated by Congress and reflected in the Guidelines). Parks has

not identified any section 3553(a) factor the district court improperly weighed or any

irrelevant factor upon which the court unduly relied. See United States v. Lincoln,

413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). Thus, Parks has

“failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his sentence.” Id.

We affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2763 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2007 Entry ID: 3342848