Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03148/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03148-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James William Rogers
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3148

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * Western District of Missouri.

* 

James William Rogers, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

Filed: May 25, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eight months after being paroled on a state felony drug charge, James William

Rogers was found in possession of a rifle after deer hunting. Despite his pleas, the

conservation agent confiscated the weapon and notified his parole officer. Rogers

pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922

(g)(1). At his first sentencing, the district court imposed five years probation, granting

a downward departure from the sentencing guideline range of 51 to 63 months. The

government appealed. This court reversed, finding the departure impermissible and

the sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Rogers, 400 F.3d 640, 641-42 (8th

Cir. 2005). 

Appellate Case: 05-3148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2006 Entry ID: 2048826
1

This Court's opinion overstated the parole violation that preceded the

possessing-rifle-after-hunting violation. See Rogers, 400 F.3d at 642. Rogers has at

all times admitted he trespassed in a restricted area, but claimed he did not know the

other two adults involved were felons.

-2-

On remand, Rogers submitted all the evidence from the first sentencing, plus

two additional letters. His state probation officer wrote that over the preceding 15

months, Rogers had reported as directed, not violated the law, and complied with her

requests. She recommended continuing his probation. In a second letter, a business

partner and friend praised Rogers's compassion, concern and love for community and

family (especially his younger son who would be "lost" without his oversight). The

district court also noted that 21 members of Rogers's community were present in

court.1

The district court re-sentenced Rogers to twelve months and one day

imprisonment, followed by supervised release for three years. The United States

appeals, claiming the sentence is unreasonable. This court reviews the "sentence for

reasonableness, a standard akin to our traditional review for abuse of discretion."

United States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States

v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Sentences varying from the guidelines range are reasonable if the district court

offers justification based on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Lazenby, 439

F.3d at 932; see generally United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259-60 (2005);

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005). "Section 3553(a)

remains in effect, and sets forth numerous factors that guide sentencing." Booker,

543 U.S. at 261; see United States v. Myers, 439 F.3d 415, 418-19 (8th Cir. 2006),

United States v. Engler, 422 F.3d 692, 696-97 (8th Cir. 2005). Although the court

need not categorically rehearse each factor, "the further the judge's sentence departs

from the guidelines sentence, the more compelling the section 3553(a) justification

must be." United States v. Givens, 443 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2006). "How

Appellate Case: 05-3148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2006 Entry ID: 2048826
-3-

compelling that justification must be is proportional to the extent of the difference

between the advisory range and the sentence imposed." Lazenby, 439 F.3d at 932,

citing United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 423, 426-27 (7th Cir. 2005). 

The twelve-month-and-one-day sentence here is 76% below the 51-month

bottom of the advisory guidelines range. "An extraordinary reduction must be

supported by extraordinary circumstances." United States v. Dalton, 404 F.3d 1029,

1033 (8th Cir. 2005). At the re-sentencing, the district court did not use the factors

in § 3553(a) to guide sentencing. Instead, it imposed the lowest sentence it thought

might "pass scrutiny" with this court. Rogers argues that at re-sentencing his counsel

did review some of the 3553(a) factors. The district court, however, never mentions

or acknowledges any of these factors at the re-sentencing. "We will not infer a

reasoned exercise of discretion from a record that suggests otherwise or is silent." Id.

The judgment is reversed. In order that further sentencing may be just under

the circumstances, the case is remanded for re-sentencing by a different judge. See

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994), citing 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3148 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2006 Entry ID: 2048826