Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03063/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03063-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin D. Gladney
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3063

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Arkansas. 

Kevin D. Gladney, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: June 15, 2006 

___________

Before COLLOTON, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin D. Gladney pled guilty to distributing five grams or more of cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and the district court1

imposed a sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment. Gladney appeals his sentence, and

we affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-3063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2006 Entry ID: 2056855
-2-

At sentencing, the district court described how it would determine Gladney’s

sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), noting that it was

required to calculate the guideline range “in the same way that it had in the past” and

“to not be a slave to [the guidelines], to not be required to follow them, but to simply

take them into account.” (Tr. at 41-42). The court concluded that Gladney was a

career offender within the meaning of USSG § 4B1.1, and that the advisory guidelines

range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The court then rejected Gladney’s

argument that because his criminal history was allegedly not typical of a career

offender, a more lenient sentence was warranted based on the factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). The court found that “the criminal history that I see here . . . does provide

support[] for the notion that the sentencing guidelines under all the circumstances are

reasonable in this particular case,” and further found that there was no justification for

going “well outside the advisory sentencing guidelines.” (Tr. at 57). The court

imposed a sentence of 188 months, which was at the bottom of the advisory range,

along with a fine of $15,000 and five years’ supervised release.

On appeal, Gladney argues that the 188-month sentence is unreasonable with

regard to § 3553(a). Subsequent to Booker, district courts are required to calculate the

applicable guideline range as they did under the mandatory guidelines system, but

they are also to consider the other factors in § 3553(a), including the history and

characteristics of the defendant, in fashioning an appropriate sentence. United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005).

Gladney argues that the district court gave undue weight to the guidelines, and failed

to consider his personal characteristics, including his personal health concerns and

drug addiction, the medical condition of his mother, and the fact that he had only two

qualifying prior offenses.

We conclude that the district court committed no legal error in its consideration

of the guidelines. The district court’s comments at sentencing indicate that it

understood the advisory nature of the guidelines and the factors it should consider in

Appellate Case: 05-3063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2006 Entry ID: 2056855
-3-

imposing a sentence. Gladney argues that his criminal history “barely” qualified him

as a career offender, and that the court erred by describing the career offender status

as something that it was “not empowered to overlook or cancel out.” (Tr. at 54). But

this comment does not demonstrate error; it was an accurate description of the district

court’s responsibility to calculate the applicable guideline range in the same manner

as it would have prior to Booker.

Nor are we persuaded by Gladney’s argument that his borderline status as a

career offender rendered a guidelines sentence unreasonable. The advisory guidelines

sentence is presumptively reasonable, United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151

(8th Cir. 2005), and there is nothing about Gladney’s offense or history that compels

a lesser sentence. Any defendant with two qualifying convictions might be said

“barely” to qualify as a career offender, but that alone surely does not make the

guidelines sentence unreasonable. 

Gladney’s record does not provide persuasive grounds for leniency. He was

convicted of aggravated assault in 1992 after he “fired shots on the day Kenneth

McKeown was killed,” and capital murder charges were reduced when “[t]he evidence

did not establish conclusively that McKeown was killed by Gladney’s shots.” (PSR

¶ 39). He was convicted of a third degree assault in 1996 after a complaint alleged

that he “punched victim Tonya Lee in the head several times.” (Id. ¶ 40). He was

convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute it in 2000, was

sentenced to probation by a lenient state court, violated his probation, and failed to

appear for a probation revocation hearing. (Id. ¶ 42). And he committed the instant

offense while on probation. (Id. ¶ 46). The district court recognized that it had

authority to vary from the guidelines, but in light of the evidence concerning

Gladney’s criminal history, the court thought the guideline sentence was reasonable

“in this particular case.” (Tr. at 57). That conclusion is not unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 05-3063 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/15/2006 Entry ID: 2056855
-4-

Gladney also argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the

judicial “fact-finding” necessary to impose an enhancement based on his status as a

career offender. We previously have rejected this argument, holding that the Sixth

Amendment is not violated by judicial determinations regarding the nature and

existence of a defendant’s prior convictions. United States v. Patterson, 412 F.3d

1011, 1015-16 (8th Cir. 2005).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3063 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/15/2006 Entry ID: 2056855