Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04126/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04126-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Bailey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4126

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Robert Bailey, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 28, 2007

Filed: August 28, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Bailey challenges the 169-month prison sentence imposed by the district

court1

 following his guilty plea to possessing and aiding and abetting the possession

of pseudoephedrine, knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). The district court sentenced Bailey within a

Guidelines range that was enhanced based on application of the career offender

Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, Bailey argues that the district court erred

when it declined his request for a downward sentencing variance based on the late

Appellate Case: 06-4126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2007 Entry ID: 3345693
-2-

onset of his criminal behavior caused by his addiction to methamphetamine; he argues

that the sentence creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. We reject these

arguments and affirm. 

This court reviews the sentence for abuse of discretion, see United States v.

Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005), and applies a presumption of

reasonableness to a sentence imposed within the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Shields, No. 06-3573, 2007 WL

2301911, at *5 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2007). The application of the career offender

Guideline was not a matter left to the district court’s discretion, see United States v.

Berni, 439 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2946 (2006),

and Bailey’s sentence is comparable to sentences imposed on others who have similar

records and are deemed career offenders, see United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 876,

880 (8th Cir. 2006) (in evaluating potential disparity, court must compare defendants

with similar records). 

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not fail to consider

a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, did not give significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, and did not commit a clear error of

judgment. See Long Soldier, 431 F.3d at 1123 (defining abuse of discretion); cf.

United States v. Lee, 454 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 2006) (drug abuse and age are not

proper reasons to impose downward variance absent exceptional circumstances such

as infirmity).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2007 Entry ID: 3345693