Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01576/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01576-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Patterson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1576

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

James Patterson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 22, 2006

Filed: December 28, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Patterson pleaded guilty to possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(j). The district court1

 calculated an advisory Guidelines imprisonment

range of 10-16 months, and sentenced Patterson to 12 months and one day in prison

and three years of supervised release. On appeal Patterson argues, citing United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment

right to a jury trial by enhancing the applicable Guidelines range based on his

possession of three stolen firearms, see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). 

Appellate Case: 06-1576 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263417
-2-

We reject Patterson’s argument, see United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862

(8th Cir. 2005) (after Booker, district court may enhance sentence based on judgefound facts if court views Guidelines as advisory), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1399

(2006); and further conclude that Patterson’s sentence was not unreasonable, see

Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-62 (appellate courts must review sentences for

unreasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence

within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut

that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

 Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1576 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263417