Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01813/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01813-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frederick Allen McCormick
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 06-1716/1813

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee/Cross-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Frederick Allen McCormick, *

*

Appellant/Cross-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2006

Filed: December 21, 2006

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Frederick Allen McCormick pleaded guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine

knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) (2000). The District Court initially

sentenced McCormick to 100 months of imprisonment, but we remanded for

resentencing after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States v.

McCormick, 142 F. App'x 957, 958 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unpublished). On

remand, the District Court calculated a base-offense level of 25 and a criminal history

category IV, which resulted in a guidelines range of 84 to 105 months. The District

Court varied downward and sentenced McCormick to forty-eight months of

imprisonment because McCormick's accomplice apparently received a sentence

Appellate Case: 06-1813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2006 Entry ID: 3261640
-2-

between one and two years in state court. McCormick appeals, arguing that the

sentence is unreasonably long in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The

government cross-appeals, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by

considering the accomplice's state-court sentence and committed clear error in

determining the ultimate sentence. We agree with the government, and we remand for

resentencing.

McCormick was arrested after buying pseudoephedrine while riding in his

accomplice's vehicle. McCormick argued at the second sentencing hearing that an

unwarranted sentencing disparity existed between his federal sentence and his

accomplice's state sentence. Although no record of the accomplice's state conviction

was introduced, the assistant U.S. attorney recalled that the accomplice's sentence was

"one to two [years], or something like that." Sent. Tr. at 19. After considerable

discussion about the accomplice's sentence, the District Court varied downward,

stating, "I believe that the disparate sentences between the two of these gentlemen

compels the court to reduce Mr. McCormick's sentence." Id. at 32–33.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, considering whether the sentencing

court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight,

gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error

of judgment considering the facts of the case. United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997,

1004 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). In this case, the District Court

lacked the authority to vary downward based on a disparity between McCormick's

federal sentence and his accomplice's state court sentence and therefore gave

significant weight to an improper factor.

In United States v. Jeremiah, 446 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2006), we reaffirmed the

principle first articulated by this Court in United States v. Deitz, 991 F.2d 443, 447

(8th Cir. 1993), that "the Commission's goal of imposing uniformity upon federal

sentences for similarly situated defendants would be impeded, not furthered, if

Appellate Case: 06-1813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2006 Entry ID: 3261640
-3-

potential federal/state sentencing discrepancies were considered. . . . The District

Court was neither required nor permitted under § 3553(a)(6) to consider a potential

federal/state sentencing disparity in imposing Jeremiah's sentence." Jeremiah, 446

F.3d at 807–08 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); accord United States

v. Vilchez, 967 F.2d 1351, 1353–55 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court's

departure based on the sentencing disparity between the federal-court defendant and

his state-court accomplice was erroneous under same reasoning articulated in Deitz

and Jeremiah).

Under this Court's precedent, the District Court abused its discretion by

considering the disparity between McCormick's federal sentence and his accomplice's

state-court sentence. The District Court also clearly erred by sentencing McCormick

forty-three percent below the low end of the guidelines range based on the

unextraordinary circumstances of this case. See United States v. Dalton, 404 F.3d

1029, 1033 (8th Cir. 2005) ("An extraordinary reduction must be supported by

extraordinary circumstances."). We reject McCormick's argument on appeal that the

sentence is unreasonably long. See, e.g., United States v. Puckett, 163 F. App'x 430,

431 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (unpublished) (rejecting defendant's challenge that

sentence below advisory range was unreasonable). We reverse and remand for

resentencing consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1813 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2006 Entry ID: 3261640