Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02602/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02602-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James C. Hoenselaar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2602

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

James C. Hoenselaar, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2007

Filed: May 11, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After James C. Hoenselaar pleaded guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), the district court1

 calculated an

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 151-188 months in prison and sentenced

Hoenselaar at the bottom of the range to 151 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release. Hoenselaar argues on appeal that the sentence is unreasonable,

and that the district court should have imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 10

years in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Upon review of the sentence for

Appellate Case: 06-2602 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2007 Entry ID: 3308700
-2-

reasonableness, see United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005), we

affirm.

Hoenselaar fails to establish that the district court overlooked a significant

factor, gave improper weight to any factor, or made a clear error in judgment. See

United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006) (setting out standard for

unreasonable sentence). Although his coconspirators may have received lower

sentences, Hoenselaar played a more significant role in the conspiracy--he served as

the methamphetamine “cook”--and more important, unlike his coconspirators, he did

not cooperate with authorities. See United States v. Gallegos, 480 F.3d 856, 859 (8th

Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that sentence was unreasonable because

of its disparity with lower sentence of codefendant; even assuming the two defendants

were equally culpable in conspiracy, they were not similarly situated and disparity

between their sentences was not unwarranted: defendant with lower sentence had

lower criminal history category and most important, had received motion for

downward departure based on substantial assistance). 

In imposing sentence the district court considered appropriate factors, including

Hoenselaar’s addiction, his extensive criminal history, and the need to deter him by

imposing a harsher sentence than he had received in the past. See 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(1) (sentencing factors include nature and circumstances of offense and history

and characteristics of defendant); (a)(2)(A) (court shall consider need for sentence

imposed to reflect seriousness of offense, to promote respect for law, and to provide

just punishment); (a)(2)(B) (court shall consider need for sentence imposed to afford

adequate deterrence to criminal conduct). Hoenselaar’s reference to sentencing

statistics for drug crimes in Nebraska is unavailing. While the Guidelines seek to

reduce sentencing disparities, see United States v. Rouillard, 474 F.3d 551, 558 (8th

Cir. 2007) (variances based on conduct accounted for in Guidelines result in

unwarranted sentencing disparities); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (district court

should consider the “need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities” between

Appellate Case: 06-2602 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2007 Entry ID: 3308700
-3-

similarly situated defendants), Hoenselaar offers no authority for the proposition that

a district court should compare a defendant’s prospective sentence to a statewide

average as part of the court’s consideration, or that such a comparison should play a

part in appellate review. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2602 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2007 Entry ID: 3308700