Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03080/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Lawrence Bracy
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3080

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jeffrey Lawrence Bracy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 9, 2010

Filed: February 23, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Jeffrey Bracy pled guilty to a weapon offense, the district court1

 varied

upward from the advisory Guidelines sentencing range and imposed a sentence of 48

months in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Bracy argues that

the district court committed procedural error by failing to properly consider

appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, that the sentence was substantively

unreasonable, and that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to

honor its plea-agreement promise to recommend a sentence of time served. 

Appellate Case: 08-3080 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2010 Entry ID: 3636885
-2-

We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural

error, and then considering the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). We find no

procedural error in this case. See United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.

2008) (if district court references some considerations contained in § 3553(a), this

court is ordinarily satisfied that court was aware of contents of statute). We also find

that the sentence was not unreasonable, given the district court’s consideration of

Bracy’s mental-health issues, substance abuse, serious criminal history, need for

treatment in prison, and the need to protect the public from his further crimes. See

United States v. Ruvalcava-Perez, 561 F.3d 883, 887 (8th Cir. 2009) (finding extent

of variance reasonable where sentencing court considered defendant’s prior criminal

conduct and need to protect society). 

Finally, the government did not breach the plea agreement: Bracy tested

positive for illegal substances after he entered into the plea agreement, which excused

the government from its promise to recommend a sentence of time served. Further,

Bracy did not argue below that the government breached the plea agreement, and in

these circumstances, no plain error occurred. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct.

1423, 1428 (2009).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3080 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2010 Entry ID: 3636885