Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02683/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02683-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan L. Goldsworth
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2683

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Alan L. Goldsworth, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2007

Filed: August 10, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alan L. Goldsworth pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). At sentencing, over

Goldsworth’s objection, the district court1

 ordered his 210-month prison sentence to

run consecutively to an undischarged state prison sentence. He appeals, arguing the

district court erred by failing to provide adequate reasons for the consecutive sentence.

Reviewing the district court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence for

Appellate Case: 06-2683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Entry ID: 3340048
-2-

reasonableness, see United States v. Shafer, 438 F.3d 1225, 1227 (8th Cir. 2006), we

affirm. 

“In any . . . case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the sentence

for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or

consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable

punishment for the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). The Guidelines

commentary lists various factors that the district court should consider in determining

a reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense and in avoiding

sentencing disparity, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.3(A)); and to ensure proper

appellate review, the court must explain its reasons for imposing a concurrent or

consecutive sentence, see United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006).

The district court extensively explained its reasons for choosing the sentence

that it did, which included its decision to impose a consecutive sentence. We

conclude that the sentence was adequately explained and not unreasonable. See

Winston, 456 F.3d at 868 (sentence was reasonable when court explained, citing

§ 3553(a) factors, why it was imposing consecutive sentence); United States v.

Walker, 439 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2006) (§ 3553(a) factors must be considered but

need not be recited one by one). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Entry ID: 3340048