Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04061/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert McFarland
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4061

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Robert McFarland, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2006

Filed: July 7, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Allan McFarland pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank

fraud. He was sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment, to be followed by three

years of supervised release. On appeal, McFarland argues that the district court1

 erred

by refusing to grant him a downward departure because his criminal history was

overstated, and imposed an unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-4061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064852
-2-

BACKGROUND

The conspiracy in this case involved a scheme to defraud financial institutions

by cashing checks drawn on fictitious accounts. In order to further the conspiracy,

McFarland obtained a driver's license using the name of a coconspirator's minor son.

Another coconspirator then wrote a check from a fictitious account with McFarland's

alias as the payee. McFarland then cashed the check using his false identification.

On March 24, 2005, McFarland was charged by indictment with one count of

conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1344, and one

count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Pursuant to a

plea agreement, McFarland agreed to plead guilty to the conspiracy offense and to

cooperate against his coconspirators. In turn, the government agreed to dismiss the

charge of aggravated identity theft, which would have carried an additional twentyfour month consecutive prison term. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a), (b).

Prior to sentencing, a presentence report (PSR) was prepared. It recommended

an adjusted offense level of 10, and determined McFarland's criminal history category

as VI, for a resulting guidelines range of twenty-four to thirty months of

imprisonment. Both McFarland and the government objected to the PSR's failure to

grant McFarland a two-level reduction in recognition of his minor role in the offense.

See USSG § 3B1.2. The district court sustained the objection, for a resulting offense

level of 8 and guidelines range of eighteen to twenty-four months. McFarland also

objected to his placement in criminal history category VI, arguing that it overstated

his actual criminal record. The court treated this as a motion for a downward

departure pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines section 4A1.3, and denied

the motion. With a guidelines range of eighteen to twenty-four months, McFarland

was sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of

supervised release.

Appellate Case: 05-4061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064852
-3-

ANALYSIS

On appeal, McFarland advances two claims related to his sentence: that the

district court erred in failing to grant him a downward departure, and that the court's

resulting sentence was unreasonable.

As to the first point, it is true that a district court may depart from the

defendant's correctly calculated criminal history category if the court finds that

category "substantially over-represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal

history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes." USSG §

4A1.3(b)(1). Where the district court recognizes its authority to depart under this

guidelines section but fails to grant a departure, this "discretionary decision" is

generally unreviewable on appeal. United States v. Andreano, 417 F.3d 967, 970 (8th

Cir. 2005). In its tentative findings, the district court clearly recognized its authority

to depart, citing section 4A1.3. It simply chose not to, citing McFarland's lengthy and

consistent criminal history, which stretched back to when he was only nine years old.

We find no error here.

McFarland next asserts that his sentence is unreasonable in light of the

sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). "Generally, a sentence is presumed

reasonable when the district court properly considers the defendant's circumstances,

the factors listed in § 3553(a), and the advisory guidelines range when determining

the sentence." United States v. Swehla, 442 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 2006); see also

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (a sentence is

unreasonable if it appears the court gave significant weight to an improper factor,

failed to fully consider an appropriate factor, or otherwise made a clear error of

judgment). Our circuit has held, however, that a sentence within the correctly

calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Lincoln,

413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2006).

Appellate Case: 05-4061 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064852
-4-

Having reviewed the record carefully, we have found nothing mandating

reversal of McFarland's sentence. McFarland's argument to this court mirrors the

argument he made below: that his sentence ought to have been shorter because his

criminal history consisted of relatively minor offenses. McFarland's record, however,

indicates a steady string of criminal activity beginning at a very young age and

continuing without significant interruption until the instant offense. While some of

his convictions involved relatively minor offenses, others indicated assaultive

conduct, theft, receiving stolen property, and forgery. Given his history, his argument

that he was entitled to a sentence below his guidelines range is simply without merit.

We note, moreover, that the district court explicitly considered other § 3553(a) factors

in imposing sentence, such as the need for McFarland to receive treatment for his

chemical dependency.

CONCLUSION

McFarland challenges his eighteen-month sentence, arguing that the district

court erred in not imposing a lesser term. We find no such error and thus affirm the

district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4061 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/07/2006 Entry ID: 2064852