Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02028/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William D. Marshall
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2028

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

William D. Marshall, also known as B.G.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: January 12, 2015

 Filed: March 17, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

William D. Marshall pled guilty to distributing cocaine base in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). He appeals as unreasonable the district court’s1

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 14-2028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Entry ID: 4255050 
within-Guidelines sentence of 140 months’ imprisonment. Having jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Marshall does not challenge the Guidelines range of 140 to 175 months. He

claims his unfortunate childhood warrants a downward variance. This court reviews

a sentence’s reasonableness under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion” standard. Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A district court “abuses its discretion when

it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight;

(2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only

the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of

judgment.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

This court reverses a district court’s sentence as substantively

unreasonable—“whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines

range”—only in the “unusual case.” Id. at 464 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

See United States v. Shirley, 720 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[A] sentence within

the guidelines is presumptively reasonable on appeal.”).

Declining to vary downward, the district court expressly considered the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court noted Marshall’s “unfortunate childhood” but

found it did not warrant a variance in light of his “very serious criminal history,” his

irresponsible behavior during supervision (including failing to attend drug tests and

lying to the court), his failed rehabilitation in community programs, and the

seriousness of selling cocaine. It was within the court’s “wide discretion” and

“substantial latitude” to determine the weight of these factors. See United States v.

Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013). Marshall relies on United States

v. Stokes, but does not point to any procedural errors on appeal. See United States v.

Stokes, 750 F.3d 767, 772 (8th Cir. 2014) (reversing sentence due to procedural error

when district court relied on government statement that had no factual support). The

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Entry ID: 4255050 
district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Marshall to 140 months’

imprisonment.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2028 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Entry ID: 4255050