Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03850/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03850-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Dontavius Wise
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3850

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Dontavius Wise, also known as Cricket, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2010

Filed: August 4, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dontavius Wise pleaded guilty to one count of distributing crack cocaine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Wise sought a downward variance

in part based on the disparity in the Guidelines’ treatment of crack and powder

cocaine. The district court1

 declined to vary downward and sentenced Wise to 120

months’ imprisonment, which was the bottom of the applicable 120 to 150 months

advisory Guidelines range. Wise appeals his sentence. We affirm.

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 09-3850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2010 Entry ID: 3690051
Wise argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence after

declining to grant a downward variance based on the disparity in the Guidelines’

treatment of crack and powder cocaine. Our review is for abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Cook, 2010 WL 1905035, at *1 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). An

abuse of discretion occurs when the district court “fails to consider a relevant factor,

gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers only

appropriate factors but nevertheless commits a clear error of judgment by arriving at

a sentence that lies outside the limited range of choice dictated by the facts of the

case.” Id. Further, “a district court’s imposition of a sentence within the advisory

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable [on appeal].” United States v.

Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649, 662 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 566 (2009).

Here, the district court properly calculated Wise’s advisory Guidelines range

as 120 to 150 months’ imprisonment. Next, the court considered Wise’s argument for

a downward variance based on the crack/powder cocaine disparity and acknowledged

its power to grant a variance on that basis. However, after a thorough discussion of

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court declined to vary

downward. The court explained that a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment was

appropriate considering Wise’s criminal behavior, age, history of committing

dangerous offenses, lack of steady work, and history of drug abuse. “The district

court was well within its discretion not to vary downward.” United States v. Davis,

583 F.3d 1081, 1099 (8th Cir. 2009) (no abuse of discretion where district court

understood its authority and considered defendant’s request to vary downward based

on crack/powder disparity, but ultimately imposed a within-Guidelines range

sentence). Further, the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis supports its decision to

sentence Wise to the low-end of his advisory Guidelines range.

Our careful review of the record demonstrates that “the [district] court

committed no procedural error in sentencing [Wise], imposed a substantively

reasonable sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to vary downward.” 

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2010 Entry ID: 3690051
Cook, 2010 WL 1905035, at *1 (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-3850 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2010 Entry ID: 3690051