Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02387/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02387-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Stanley Bradshaw
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The jury acquitted Bradshaw of a third count of distributing cocaine base.

Bradshaw and three other defendants were also charged with one count of conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, but that count was dismissed as to

Bradshaw before the trial. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2387

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of North Dakota. 

Paul Stanley Bradshaw, *

also known as Swan, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2010

Filed: July 30, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Paul Stanley Bradshaw guilty of two counts of distributing

cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.1

 Bradshaw, a

career offender, had an offense level of 34, a criminal history category of VI, and an

advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) range of 262

Appellate Case: 09-2387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688632
2

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota. 

-2-

to 327 months imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). The district court2

 varied

downward from the Guidelines and sentenced Bradshaw to 200 months imprisonment.

On appeal, Bradshaw argues his below-Guidelines sentence is greater than

necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

Bradshaw also insists the district court did not adequately explain why Bradshaw’s

sentence was longer than his co-defendant, Anthony Walker, who was sentenced to

176 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled

substance. 

Because Bradshaw did not object to the adequacy of the district court’s

explanation at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Statman,

604 F.3d 529, 534 (8th Cir. 2010). To establish plain error, Bradshaw must show

(1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious (3) which affects his substantial rights and

(4) “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.’” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. __, __, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429

(2009) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)). In arriving at

Bradshaw’s sentence, the district court discussed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors and determined a below-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. The district

court reasoned Bradshaw deserved a higher sentence than Walker, even though

Walker pled guilty to a conspiracy charge, because Walker (1) had diminished mental

capacity, (2) was manipulated by his family into engaging in drug trafficking, (3) pled

guilty, and (4) cooperated with the government. According to the district court,

Bradshaw’s conduct was “more egregious” than Walker’s because Bradshaw was a

bright and capable person with good mental functioning. We find no error, plain or

otherwise, in the district court’s explanation for Bradshaw’s sentence. See United

States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“[W]e do not require

Appellate Case: 09-2387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688632
-3-

a district court to provide a mechanical recitation of the § 3553(a) factors when

determining a sentence.” (quoting United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654, 659

(8th Cir. 2009))); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). 

Having found no procedural error, we next consider the substantive

reasonableness of Bradshaw’s sentence. “[G]iv[ing] due deference to the district

court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify” Bradshaw’s sentence,

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), our careful review of the record and

Bradshaw’s sentence reveals no abuse of the district court’s considerable sentencing

discretion and no basis for concluding Bradshaw’s sentence, which is 62 months

below the low end of Bradshaw’s advisory Guidelines range, is substantively

unreasonable. 

We affirm the district court’s judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2387 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688632