Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01482/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01482-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rene Alvarado
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. 06-1482

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Rene Alvarado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 21, 2006

Filed: December 27, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rene Alvarado appeals the 135-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). For reversal,

Alvarado argues that the sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed

to take into account the nature and circumstances of the crime, and his history and

characteristics. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2006 Entry ID: 3262942
-2-

The record belies Alvarado’s argument. In presentencing tentative findings

denying Alvarado’s motion for a deviation from the advisory Guidelines range, the

court provided a detailed and reasoned analysis for denying the motion: the court

specifically discussed and commented on the nature and circumstances of the crime

and the fact that Alvarado had already received a sentencing benefit by being awarded

a two-level safety-valve reduction. And when the court again denied the deviation

request at sentencing, the court noted explicitly that it had considered the sentencing

factors included in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, the 135-month sentence was within

the undisputed Guidelines range, and Alvarado has not rebutted--nor can we see a

basis for rebutting--the resulting presumption of reasonableness. See United States

v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence

can be unreasonable if district court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should

have received significant weight; (2) gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant

factor; or (3) considered only appropriate factors, but in weighing those factors

committed clear error of judgment). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2006 Entry ID: 3262942