Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01139/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jose H. Valles-Juarez
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1139

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jose H. Valles-Juarez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 22, 2007

Filed: January 25, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Valles-Juarez appeals the 168-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846. For reversal, he argues the court gave undue weight to the

Guidelines and did not properly account for the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that

favored a lower sentence. 

Appellate Case: 06-1139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2007 Entry ID: 3271287
-2-

We disagree, and conclude that the sentence--which was at the bottom of the

undisputed Guidelines range--is not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate courts must review sentences for

unreasonableness); United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005)

(presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed to

consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant

weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but

committed clear error of judgment in weighing them); United States v. Lincoln, 413

F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840

(2005). At sentencing the district court recited the section 3553(a) factors and

indicated it had considered all of them, stating in particular that the criminal-justice

goals of deterrence and an opportunity for rehabilitation supported the sentence it

chose. See United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005)

(relevant inquiry is whether district court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and

whether appellate court’s review of factors leads to conclusion that they support

reasonableness of district court’s sentencing decision); United States v. Franklin, 397

F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (all that is required is evidence that district court

considered relevant matters, not that court made specific findings on each § 3553(a)

factor). Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2007 Entry ID: 3271287