Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03564/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03564-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Alberto Zatarain
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3564

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Alberto Zatarain, also known as Beto, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 2, 2007

Filed: October 10, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While he was serving a sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment for a federal

drug-trafficking offense, Alberto Zatarain (Zatarain) contacted his brother and

arranged for the brother to sell drugs to a third person. That person was an undercover

officer, and Zatarain thereafter pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or

more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. The district court1

sentenced Zatarain to 135 months’ imprisonment be served consecutively to the

undischarged 188-month sentence. Zatarain appeals, arguing his sentence is

Appellate Case: 06-3564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2007 Entry ID: 3360217
-2-

unreasonable because application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support a partially

concurrent sentence.

 

After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

in imposing a fully consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861,

867 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The court explicitly and properly considered

the seriousness of the offense, Zatarain’s failure to be deterred by his previous 188-

month sentence, and the fact Zatarain committed the instant offense while in custody

for a similar offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)-(b) (declaring when a term of

imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged

term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively; in

determining whether to impose the terms consecutively or concurrently, a court shall

consider § 3553(a) factors); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of

offense and history and characteristics of defendant), (2)(A) (seriousness of offense),

(2)(B) (adequate deterrence); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a) (requiring consecutive sentence

where offense was committed while serving term of imprisonment on another

offense); Winston, 456 F.3d at 868 (affirming a sentence where the district court

explained its decision to run sentence consecutively and cited § 3553(a) factors).

For these reasons, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2007 Entry ID: 3360217