Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03735/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone V. Thomas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3735

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Tyrone V. Thomas, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2006

Filed: July 21, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Tyrone Thomas appeals from the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to

possessing with intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture or substance

containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B). The district court1

 sentenced him to 262 months' imprisonment,

followed by eight years of supervised release. Thomas argues on appeal that his

sentence is unreasonable under the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Appellate Case: 05-3735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069890
-2-

because the district court did not properly take into account his limited mental

capacity. We affirm.

We review the district court's sentencing decision for reasonableness. United

States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1083 (8th Cir. 2005). A sentence within the

advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, although that presumption may

be rebutted if the sentence is inconsistent with the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a). United States v. Cadenas, 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 2006). We may

reverse a sentence "if the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should

have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or considered only appropriate factors but nevertheless committed a clear error

of judgment by imposing a sentence that lies outside of the range dictated by the facts

of the case." United States v. Walker, 439 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2006). Thomas

argues that the district court erred under § 3553(a) by failing to provide for a sentence

that was "not greater than necessary" to achieve the goals of sentencing and that

properly took into account his "personal characteristics."

Thomas's presentence investigation report determined that he was a career

offender with a criminal history category of VI and calculated his advisory sentencing

guidelines range to be between 262 and 327 months' imprisonment. Thomas did not

object to the report or move for a downward departure under the Sentencing

Guidelines. However, he made a motion requesting that the district court use its

discretion under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to deviate from the

guidelines range based on the factors in § 3553(a). Thomas argued that his "marginal

intellectual functioning" was a characteristic which should be considered under §

3553(a)(1). He presented an evaluation by a psychologist who diagnosed him with

antisocial personality disorder and found him to have a full-scale IQ of 63, a verbal

IQ of 60, and a performance IQ of 74. The psychologist's report concluded that these

intellectual deficits might interfere with Thomas's judgment, but that his test results

appeared to "slightly underestimate his intellectual functioning" and that it was

Appellate Case: 05-3735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069890
-3-

unlikely that Thomas was unable to "know or appreciate the wrongfulness of his

behavior regarding possession of the controlled substance."

We find nothing in the record to indicate that the district court committed error

by refusing to grant the motion and sentencing Thomas at the bottom of the guidelines

range. The court understood that the guidelines were advisory and that it should

fashion a sentence by reference to the factors listed in § 3553(a). The court discussed

the psychologist's report with counsel and carefully considered whether Thomas's

mental capacity warranted a lower sentence in light of those statutory factors.

However, the court determined that in light of the nature of the offense, Thomas's

history and characteristics, as well as the statutory goals of sentencing, including

protecting the public, a sentence within the guidelines range was appropriate. Because

Thomas has failed to overcome the presumption that his sentence was reasonable, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3735 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2006 Entry ID: 2069890