Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04277/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04277-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Manzell Fortune
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4277

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Curtis Manzell Fortune, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 31, 2007

Filed: February 5, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Fortune pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base with intent to

distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (10-year minimum prison term); and

carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i),

(D)(ii) (consecutive 5-year minimum prison term). Calculating an advisory Guidelines

range of 151-188 months for the drug count, the district court1

 sentenced Fortune to

consecutive prison terms of 151 months and 60 months. Fortune appeals, arguing that

the sentence is unreasonable and that imposing the 10-year minimum on the drug count

Appellate Case: 05-4277 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2007 Entry ID: 3275112
-2-

(for a 180-month total sentence) would accomplish the goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a). 

We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate courts must review sentences for

unreasonableness). Fortune has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that

attaches to the prison term selected for the drug count. See United States v. Tobacco,

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

unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have

received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,

or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in

weighing them); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence

within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut

presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). The district court

acknowledged its obligation to consider the section 3553(a) factors, and properly noted

Fortune’s failure to change his ways after two previous drug convictions. See United

States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentencing court need not

specifically mention each § 3553(a) factor; relevant inquiry is whether court actually

considered those factors and whether appellate court’s review of factors leads it to

conclude they support reasonableness of sentence). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4277 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2007 Entry ID: 3275112