Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04176/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeremy David Peery
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4176

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jeremy David Peery, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 3, 2006

Filed: November 9, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Peery appeals the 21-month concurrent prison sentences that the district

court1

 imposed upon his guilty plea to identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1028(a)(7), and access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5). For

reversal, Peery argues that the court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it was

at the top of the Guidelines range and the court considered only the nature and

circumstances of the offense to the exclusion of other relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 05-4176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2006 Entry ID: 2108284
-2-

§ 3553(a) that warranted a lesser sentence. We reject this argument and affirm

Peery’s sentence.

Specifically, we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, see United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005), because we see no basis for Peery to

rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence that falls within

the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, see United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d

1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). As to the section 3553(a) factors, the court was

not required to explicitly discuss in open court each and every section 3553(a)

sentencing factor, and notably, the court did discuss various relevant factors such as

the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law and to provide

just punishment, and the need to provide adequate deterrence and to protect the public

from further crimes. See United States v. Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir.

2005) (nothing in § 3553(a) requires “robotic incantations” that each factor was

considered); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (if

sentencing judge references some § 3553(a) considerations, appellate court is

ordinarily satisfied district court was aware of entire contents of statute).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2006 Entry ID: 2108284