Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03325/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03325-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John L. Heavner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice of the United States

Supreme Court, (Ret.), sitting by designation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(a).

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-3325

________________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

John L. Heavner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

________________

Submitted: February 12, 2007

 Filed: April 26, 2007 

__________________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, O’CONNOR,* Associate Justice (Ret.) and

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. 

________________

PER CURIAM. 

John Heavner pled guilty to one count of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a). The district court1

 sentenced Heavner to 151 months’ imprisonment.

Heavner appeals his sentence. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-3325 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3302974
-2-

On October 17, 2005, Heavner robbed a Bank of America branch in Raytown,

Missouri. He was unmasked and unarmed, but he threatened to produce a gun if the

tellers did not give him money. He left the bank after a teller gave him $797. Police

arrested him on the same day. Heavner was indicted for one count of bank robbery

and pled guilty. The presentence investigation report classified Heavner as a career

offender pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1 based on his three

prior convictions for crimes of violence. 

At sentencing, the district court followed the three-step procedure outlined in

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005). It first determined the

appropriate guidelines range, it then decided whether a traditional departure was

appropriate, and it finally considered the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See id.

First, the district court calculated an undisputed advisory sentencing guidelines range

of 151 to 188 months based on a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history

category of VI. The district court then considered Heavner’s argument that it should

grant a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 because his criminal history

category of VI over-represented the seriousness of his criminal history. The district

court declined to depart from the guidelines range because it found that a criminal

history category of VI accurately represented the seriousness of Heavner’s criminal

history. Finally, the district court considered the other § 3553(a) factors. 

In its consideration of the other § 3553(a) factors, the district court noted that

in this circuit a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable and that a sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

comply with the purposes set forth in [the statute].” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district

court then considered the nature and circumstances of Heavner’s robbery; the history

and characteristics of Heavner; and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness

of Heavner’s crime, promote respect for the law, provide a just punishment, protect

the public from further crimes, provide Heavner with the necessary educational and

medical care, and avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among similar defendants

Appellate Case: 06-3325 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3302974
-3-

involved in similar crimes. After this thorough consideration of the § 3553(a) factors,

the district court stated that “a sentence within the guideline range is an appropriate

sentence” and sentenced Heavner to 151 months’ imprisonment, the low end of the

advisory guidelines range. 

Although he did not object at sentencing, Heavner’s sole argument on appeal

is that the district court erred by applying a presumption of reasonableness to a

sentence within the properly calculated advisory guidelines range. He argues that the

guidelines are but one of a number of § 3553(a) factors and that a presumption of

reasonableness for a sentence within the guidelines sentence creates a disproportionate

emphasis on one of the § 3553(a) factors. Heavner recognizes that the law in this

circuit is that a sentence within the guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,

United States v. Garnica, 477 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), but he notes

that the United States Supreme Court granted certioriari on this question in United

States v. Rita, 177 Fed. Appx. 357 (4th Cir.) (unpub. per curiam), cert. granted, ---

U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 551 (2006), and United States v. Claiborne, 439 F.3d 479 (8th

Cir.), cert. granted, --- U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 551 (2006). Heavner’s argument is

unavailing because a panel of this court is bound by the prior panels’ decisions unless

(and until) the court en banc, or the Supreme Court, reaches a different result. See

Patterson v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc., 113 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir. 1997). Therefore, we

reject Heavner’s argument and affirm his sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3325 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3302974