Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02731/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gordon David Reese
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2731

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Gordon David Reese, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 31, 2007

Filed: September 13, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gordon David Reese appeals the 363-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to distribute or possess with intent

to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possessing

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

(b)(1)(B); possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); being an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1); and committing assault resulting in

Appellate Case: 06-2731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2007 Entry ID: 3351220
-2-

bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(4), 1153(a). Reese asked the court

to sentence him below the advisory guidelines range of 360 months’ to life

imprisonment that resulted from his status as a career offender. See USSG § 4B1.1.

He now argues his sentence is unreasonable given the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

to impose a sentence that is “not greater than necessary,” and given relevant section

3553(a) factors, especially what he asserts is a criminal history category that overrepresents the seriousness of his criminal history.

The record reflects that the district court considered Reese’s background and

other relevant factors, including the circumstances of the instant offenses and the

career-offender predicate offenses, and found that his sentence was sufficient but not

greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing. We find no abuse of

discretion in the court’s selection of a sentence at the low end of the advisory

guidelines range, and we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d

716, 717 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1081 (2005); United States v. Haack, 403

F.3d 997, 1002-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 913 (2005).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2007 Entry ID: 3351220