Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04241/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04241-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omy Jamel Larkins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4241

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Omy Jamel Larkins, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 3, 2006

Filed: November 8, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Omy Jamel Larkins (Larkins) pled guilty to aiding and abetting the possession

of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. At sentencing, the district court1

 found Larkins was

a career offender based in part on two prior drug offenses, and it denied an U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.3 downward departure, finding Larkins’s career-offender status did not

significantly overrepresent his criminal history. The court sentenced Larkins to 188

Appellate Case: 05-4241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107799
-2-

months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Larkins maintains

his sentence is unreasonable, arguing his criminal history is overstated and the court

failed to consider, and explain its application of, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

We reject these arguments. First, the district court’s refusal to depart downward

from an alleged overstated criminal history cannot be reviewed. See United States v.

Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). Second, the court adequately addressed

the sentencing factors, particularly Larkins’s criminal history, the need for the

sentence to reflect the seriousness of the instant offense and to protect the public, and

potential sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2); United States v.

Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005). Finally, the sentence–which was

within the applicable Guidelines range–is not unreasonable. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005); United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151

(8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). 

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2006 Entry ID: 2107799