Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04033/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Koebel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4033

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Robert Koebel, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 11, 2007

Filed: October 16, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal of his 70-month prison sentence for possessing

pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to manufacture a controlled substance in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, Robert Koebel argues that his

sentence is unreasonable because the district court1

 did not give reasons for refusing

to vary more than 14 months below the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, which

makes it impossible for this court to engage in a meaningful reasonableness review

of his sentence. 

Appellate Case: 06-4033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2007 Entry ID: 3362084
-2-

We conclude that the record is sufficient to permit meaningful review, however,

and we further conclude that Koebel’s sentence is not unreasonable. The district

court’s statements, and the testimony and arguments from the sentencing hearing,

convince us that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United

States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is not

whether district court quoted or cited § 3553(a), but whether court actually considered

§ 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads it to

conclude that they support finding of reasonableness). The court mentioned the

circumstances of the offense and the circumstances and background of Koebel, and

indicated that Koebel needed to pay his debt to society for engaging in criminal

behavior, which are all proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (in

imposing sentence district court must consider nature and circumstances of offense

and history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(A) (sentence must reflect

seriousness of offense, promote respect for law, and provide just punishment).

Nothing in the record indicates that the court overlooked any relevant factor or

considered an inappropriate factor. See United States v. Mosqueda-Estevez, 485 F.3d

1009, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2007 Entry ID: 3362084