Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02447/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02447-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick James McMannus
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2447

___________ 

United States of America,

Appellant,

v.

Patrick James McMannus,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the 

Northern District of Iowa.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: January 30, 2008 

 Filed: February 7, 2008 

________________

Before MELLOY, SMITH and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM. 

Patrick James McMannus pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine and other offenses. The district court1

 varied from an advisory

sentencing guidelines range of 57 to 71 months and imposed a sentence of 24 months’

imprisonment. The Government appealed the sentence, and we vacated McMannus’s

sentence as unreasonable because extraordinary variances required extraordinary

Appellate Case: 06-2447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2008 Entry ID: 3399826
2

In McMannus II, we also vacated the sentence of McMannus’s co-defendant,

Sheri Brinton. Our decision to vacate McMannus II is limited to McMannus and does

not affect our prior decision regarding Brinton. 

-2-

circumstances and the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the

variance. United States v. McMannus, 436 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2006)

(“McMannus I”). On resentencing, the district court, relying on McMannus’s postsentencing rehabilitation, again imposed a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment.

Alternatively, the district court announced that it would have imposed the same

sentence even if it had not considered McMannus’s post-sentencing rehabilitation

because McMannus quit using drugs after his first arrest in 2001, put himself through

community college while on pretrial release, was employed while on pretrial release

and was highly commended by his employer, was a “model” citizen while on pretrial

release, and passed all of his drug tests. The Government again appealed, and we

vacated McMannus’s sentence and remanded for resentencing based on our circuit’s

precedent holding that post-sentencing rehabilitation is an impermissible factor for the

district court to consider. United States v. McMannus, 496 F.3d 846, 851-52 (8th Cir.

2007) (“McMannus II”) (citing United States v. Jenners, 473 F.3d 894, 899 (8th Cir.

2007)). Additionally, we rejected the district court’s alternative reasons for imposing

the 24-month sentence because, as we decided in McMannus I, the circumstances were

not sufficiently extraordinary to support such an extraordinary variance. Id. at 852.

McMannus filed a petition for rehearing. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court

decided Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ---, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), which rejected our

requirement of extraordinary circumstances to justify extraordinary variances. Id. at

594; United States v. McGhee, --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 141168, *1 (8th Cir. 2008). As

a result, on January 30, 2008, we granted McMannus’s petition for rehearing and

vacated McMannus II2

 to determine whether, in the absence of post-sentencing

rehabilitation evidence, a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment was unreasonable in

light of Gall. Applying the “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” in Gall, we now

conclude that the district court’s alternative reasons provide “sufficient justification”

Appellate Case: 06-2447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2008 Entry ID: 3399826
-3-

to support the district court’s decision to vary from the advisory sentencing guidelines

range to a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 591, 594.

Accordingly, we affirm McMannus’s sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2447 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2008 Entry ID: 3399826