Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01389/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01389-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Anthony Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1389 

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

James Anthony Anderson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2005

Filed: December 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Anthony Anderson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

as unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm.

Pursuant to a guilty plea, Anderson was convicted of escape from custody in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Based upon Anderson’s criminal history, the district

court determined Anderson’s sentencing range was thirty-seven to forty-six months.

Appellate Case: 05-1389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986719
-2-

Anderson moved for a variance from the guideline range under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and asked the district court to impose a sentence of twelve months. The

district court, upon consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, determined Anderson was

a recidivist who was likely “to continue to repeat crime.” The district court concluded

Anderson’s case did not justify variance from the sentencing range and denied

Anderson’s motion, sentencing him to thirty-seven months of imprisonment and two

years of supervised release, both to run consecutive to his prior sentence. A sentence

within the sentencing range established by the United States Sentencing Guidelines

is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th

Cir. 2005).

In determining whether a sentence is reasonable, we consider how the sentence

measures against the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v.

Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 985 (8th Cir. 2005). “To make the reasonableness

determination, we ask whether the district court abused its discretion.” United States

v. Pizano, 403 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Anderson first argues his sentence is unreasonable because it creates a disparity

between his sentence and that of his co-defendant. He argues his entitlement to a

twelve-month sentence to ensure parity with his co-defendant. He further argues the

reasonableness of a twelve-month sentence is supported by the government’s position

“[a] sentence of not less than twelve months consecutive would be a reasonable

sentence.” In its determination of the ultimate reasonableness of a sentence, the

district court need not give weight to the government’s position. Further, the district

court is not obligated to ensure parity among co-defendants with different criminal

histories. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We conclude it was neither unreasonable, nor

an abuse of discretion, to impose a sentence higher than received by Anderson’s

co-defendant given the different criminal histories of the two men.

Appellate Case: 05-1389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986719
-3-

Second, Anderson argues his sentence fails to sufficiently account for his

history and characteristics, including his upbringing, and is therefore unreasonable.

The district court considered Anderson’s criminal history and background and

concluded Anderson’s case was not sufficiently unusual to justify variance from the

presumptively reasonable guideline range. Although Anderson’s upbringing is

disheartening and warrants consideration, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), we cannot say the

district court imposed an unreasonable sentence considering the other § 3553(a)

factors, including Anderson’s recidivism and violent criminal history.

Finally, Anderson argues his original sentence was excessive because the

Bureau of Prisons did not credit some of his time served. This claim was rejected by

the district court. Anderson argues a reasonable sentence for the instant offense

should account for the Bureau of Prisons’ error. This argument is without merit. The

subjective belief a prior sentence is invalid is no justification for committing the

offense of escape, nor is it a valid basis for adjusting the sentence of a subsequent

offense. Cf. United States v. J.L.K., Jr., 880 F.2d 993, 994 (8th Cir. 1989) (per

curiam) (holding defendant’s failure to utilize administrative and legal remedies to

challenge his sentence precluded his use of the defenses of necessity and duress to a

charge of escape from custody). 

We conclude the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable and

therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1389 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986719