Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01736/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01736-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe Mack Pool
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1736

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Joe Mack Pool, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 18, 2008

Filed: January 24, 2008 

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe Mack Pool (Pool) appeals the prison sentence the district court imposed

following remand. We again remand for resentencing. 

Pool was found guilty of conspiring to commit bribery and money laundering,

and multiple counts of aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering. His

Guidelines imprisonment range was 33-41 months. After considering dozens of

character letters, the testimony of several supportive witnesses, and each 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factor, the district court sentenced Pool to 5 years of probation, with the first

year to be served in a halfway house. The court relied in particular on the value of

preserving Pool’s business and his employees’ jobs, the need for Pool to continue his

Appellate Case: 07-1736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2008 Entry ID: 3394648
-2-

significant charitable activities, and the existence of his medical problems. See United

States v. Pool, 474 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 2007). 

The government appealed, and this court vacated the probationary sentence as

an unreasonable variance, noting that while the circumstances the district court relied

on were “appropriate considerations, the court gave too much weight” to these factors,

which did “not justify a variance of this magnitude,” and gave insufficient weight to

other section 3553(a) factors, such as the need to avoid unwarranted sentence

disparities. See id. at 1129-30.

On remand, without addressing the grounds Pool asserted in support of a

variance, the district court sentenced him to 33 months in prison. The court stated

only that it had “carefully considered the guidelines,” and that it had “an affirmative

duty” to impose a sentence that would meet the need to promote respect for the law,

protect the public, deter criminal conduct, and provide opportunities for treatment.

After careful review, we are concerned the district court’s decision to

resentence Pool within the Guidelines range--without even mentioning the factors it

had previously cited as grounds for a variance--may indicate that the court felt

constrained to do so by the remanding opinion. The district court’s discretion was not

so limited, however, as the Supreme Court subsequently made clear in Gall v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 602 (2007) (explaining that an appellate court must give “due

deference to the District Court’s reasoned and reasonable decision that the § 3553(a)

factors, on the whole, justified the sentence,” rather than “decide de novo whether the

justification for a variance is sufficient or the sentence reasonable”). 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing in light of Gall. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2008 Entry ID: 3394648