Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03629/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03629-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eddie Rask
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3629

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Eddie Rask, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 30, 2007

Filed: August 3, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Rask challenges the 100-month prison sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. For reversal, he argues that his

sentence was unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 because his criminal history was

overstated and the court refused to grant his motion for a downward departure under

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (allowing departure for over- or under-represented criminal history).

We affirm, because the district court’s clearly discretionary decision not to depart is

unreviewable, see United States v. Lee, 451 F.3d 914, 918 (8th Cir. 2006) (even after

Appellate Case: 06-3629 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Entry ID: 3336961
-2-

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), discretionary decision not to depart

under Guidelines continues to be unreviewable on appeal), petition for cert. filed,

(U.S. Oct. 30, 2006) (No. 06-7591), and we see no basis to conclude that the sentence-

-imposed at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range--is unreasonable, see Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463-68 (U.S. 2007) (discussing application of

presumption of reasonableness to sentence that reflected proper application of

Guidelines); United States v. Harris, No. 06-2892, 2007 WL 1964651, at *3 (8th Cir.

July 9, 2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

__________________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3629 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Entry ID: 3336961