Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02661/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02661-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Edward Davis
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2661

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

John Edward Davis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 28, 2008

Filed: May 5, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Davis challenges the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). On appeal, he argues that the district court

imposed an unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider a proposed amendment

to the Guidelines that would have lowered the advisory Guidelines imprisonment

range. Alternatively, Davis urges this court to remand his case for resentencing so the

district court can apply the amendment, which became effective after his sentencing.

Appellate Case: 07-2661 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2008 Entry ID: 3430097
-2-

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly used the

Guidelines that were in effect at the time of sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 (court

generally should use Guidelines in effect on date of sentencing); United States v.

Ingram, 501 F.3d 963, 968 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court’s application of Guidelines

reviewed de novo), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Dec. 5, 2007) (No. 07-8093). 

We also believe that Davis’s sentence is not unreasonable. See Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of

reasonableness); United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007) (applying

presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008); see also United

States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2006) (it is rare for Guidelines

sentence to be greater than necessary to achieve statutory goals of sentencing), cert.

denied, 127 S. Ct. 3064 (2007). 

Finally, we decline to remand this case for resentencing because the Sentencing

Commission has not designated the amendment at issue as one that may be applied

retroactively. See United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268, 1272 (8th Cir. 1993)

(amendment to Guidelines may not be applied retroactively unless Sentencing

Commission has expressly designated it as one that may be applied retroactively).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2661 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2008 Entry ID: 3430097