Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03823/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03823-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terron Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3823

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Terron Brown, also known *

as T-Rex, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 24, 2007

 Filed: August 27, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Terron Brown appeals the sentence of 292 months’ imprisonment imposed by

the district court1

 following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 1.5

kilograms of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii)

and 846. This court has vacated Brown’s sentence and remanded for resentencing on

two prior occasions. See United States v. Brown, 453 F.3d 1024, 1026-27 (8th Cir.

2006); United States v. Brown, 414 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2005). On this appeal, Brown

Appellate Case: 06-3823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2007 Entry ID: 3345336
-2-

argues that the district court improperly applied a presumption of reasonableness to

the advisory guidelines range and failed to exercise its discretion in determining the

sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the district court properly recognized

its responsibilities under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and its

discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We do apply a presumption of reasonableness

on appeal to a sentence within the guideline range, see Rita v. United States, 127 S.

Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 546 U.S. 1081 (2005), and we conclude that Brown’s sentence is not

unreasonable.

Brown also argues that this court improperly requires district courts to offer an

“appropriate justification” by reference to § 3553(a) to support a variance from the

guidelines range. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case that presents a

related question, see Gall v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2933 (2007), but the requirement

of an “appropriate justification” for a variance remains the law of this circuit. See

United States v. Gonzalez-Alvarado, 477 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir. 2007). We decline

to address Brown’s pro se supplemental filing, see United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d

722, 734 n.7 (8th Cir. 1997), and deny his request for relief.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2007 Entry ID: 3345336