Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04380/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04380-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cyril S. Plumman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4380

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Cyril S. Plumman, also known as * District of South Dakota.

Steve Plumman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 31, 2006

Filed: August 7, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Cyril S. Plumman (Plumman) of sexual abuse and aggravated

sexual abuse of two minor females, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c),

2246(2)(A)-(D), and he was sentenced to life imprisonment on some counts, and 180

months’ imprisonment on others. We affirmed Plumman’s convictions and his 180-

month sentences, but vacated his life sentences and remanded for resentencing under

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Plumman, 409

Appellate Case: 05-4380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075341
1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

-2-

F.3d 919, 921-32 (8th Cir. 2005). On remand, the district court1

 sentenced Plumman

to 384 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release, to be served

concurrently, and he appeals.

At the resentencing hearing, the government asked the district court to reimpose

a life sentence in accordance with the advisory Guidelines range, and confirmed the

court would take into consideration the evidence at Plumman’s trial, along with the

evidence at the first sentencing hearing. Plumman asked for a sentence of 180

months’ imprisonment, and offered three character witnesses. In sentencing

Plumman, the district court commented about the level of violence and risks to Native

American women and children on South Dakota reservations. The district court stated

there was no basis for a traditional downward departure, but nevertheless granted a

variance to 384 months’ imprisonment, noting several 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in

its post-hearing written statement of reasons for imposing a sentence below the

advisory Guidelines range.

On appeal, Plumman argues his sentence is unreasonable because he was not

sentenced based upon an objective analysis of section 3553(a)’s sentencing factors,

and the district court was not sufficiently specific in stating reasons for its sentencing

decision. Although the district court did not recite all of the section 3553(a) factors,

the record shows the court considered them, and we disagree with Plumman that the

court’s expression of concern about the violence on Indian reservations in South

Dakota shows the court gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor.

See United States v. Dieken, 432 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding sentence may

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 nevertheless committed clear error of

Appellate Case: 05-4380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075341
-3-

judgment by imposing sentence outside range of choice dictated by facts of case;

district court is not required to recite each section 3553(a) factor on record when it

imposes sentence, as long as it is clear they were considered), petition for cert. filed,

(U.S. June 15, 2006) (No. 05-11598). Given the presumptive reasonableness of a life

sentence in this case, and Plumman’s failure to cite any reason for a further variance,

we conclude Plumman’s sentence is not unreasonable, and the district court did not

abuse its discretion. See United States v. Brown, No. 05-3896, 2006 WL 1913055,

at *2 (8th Cir. July 13, 2006) (holding after Booker, sentencing court must first

calculate appropriate advisory Guidelines range, including any traditional Guidelines

departure; where there are no grounds for traditional departure, court of appeals

reviews for abuse of discretion reasonableness of downward variance); United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.) (stating “standard of review is whether the

district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence”), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4380 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075341