Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01274/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jamie Wesley
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1274

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Jamie Wesley, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 31, 2005

Filed: October 12, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jamie Wesley challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. At sentencing, Wesley moved for a

downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 based on overstatement of his criminal

history. The district court denied the motion and sentenced him to 135 months

imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Wesley argues that the

district court should have granted the downward departure, and that his sentence is

unreasonable. 

Appellate Case: 05-1274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962109
-2-

Upon careful review of the record, we find that the district court’s denial of the

downward departure under the Guidelines was an unreviewable exercise of

discretion. See United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 874 (8th Cir. 2005) (district

court’s denial of downward departure unreviewable unless court had unconstitutional

motive or erroneously believed it was without authority to depart). 

Further, the district court properly utilized the Guidelines as advisory and

considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Therefore, there was no

error under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005) (Guidelines are

only advisory). See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir.2005) (en

banc) (holding Booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper

Guidelines sentencing range, treats Guidelines as advisory, and imposes reasonable

sentence), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). 

Finally, we conclude that Wesley’s sentence was not unreasonable: the

sentence was within the Guidelines range, and the district court explicitly stated it

considered the sentencing factors listed in section 3553(a). See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within Guidelines range

presumptively reasonable; presumption not rebutted where district court expressly

considered § 3553(a) factors). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962109