Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03330/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03330-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heather Servantez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3330

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Heather Servantez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 10, 2007

Filed: August 23, 2007 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Heather Servantez appeals the 126-month prison terms the district court1

imposed after she pleaded guilty to two drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and

846. For reversal, she argues that her sentence is unreasonable and the district court

committed a clear error of judgment by sentencing her at the top of the advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range, because the court gave undue weight to her criminal

history without taking into account the petty nature of most of the offenses.

Appellate Case: 06-3330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2007 Entry ID: 3344434
-2-

When the applicable Guidelines range is undisputed, as it is here, we consider

whether the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005). The presumption of

reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007), may be rebutted by showing that the district

court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave

significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise committed a clear error of

judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006). The

record supports that the district court properly considered only relevant factors,

including Servantez’s extensive criminal history and her role in the conspiracy, and

did not commit a clear error of judgment in choosing a sentence at the top of the

Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2007 Entry ID: 3344434