Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02051/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Robbins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2051

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Joseph Robbins, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006

Filed: April 7, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Robbins appeals the 18-month prison sentence the district court*

imposed after Robbins pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Robbins

argues the court imposed an inappropriate sentence by relying on unresolved

contested factual assertions in the presentence report (PSR). 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we disagree. The district court resolved

Robbins’s timely written objections to the PSR, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1) ( time

Appellate Case: 05-2051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2006 Entry ID: 2030333
-2-

to object to PSR), (i)(3)(B) (court’s obligation to rule on disputed matters at

sentencing), and took into account the corrections and additional information Robbins

provided at sentencing. The matters the district court considered in setting the

sentence were appropriate sentencing considerations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)

(nature and characteristics of offense; history and characteristics of defendant),

(a)(2)(A-C) (seriousness of offense, promote respect for law; afford deterrence;

protect public); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005)

(relevant inquiry is whether court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and whether

appellate court’s review of factors leads it to conclude they support reasonableness

of sentence). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2006 Entry ID: 2030333