Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04421/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04421-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacob George Colbert
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4421

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jacob George Colbert, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2007

Filed: February 14, 2007 

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jacob Colbert pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court1

 found that Colbert was subject to an advisory

Guidelines imprisonment range of 262-327 months, and sentenced him to 235 months

in prison based on its explicit consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). On appeal, Colbert argues that the district court abused its discretion by

not imposing a lower sentence. We reject this argument, because the court properly

Appellate Case: 05-4421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2007 Entry ID: 3278674
-2-

based the sentence – which was below the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range

– on the section 3553(a) factors, and Colbert has not shown that the court failed to

take into account or give proper weight to any factor. See United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness;

section 3553(a) factors will guide appellate courts in determining whether sentence

is unreasonable); cf. United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005)

(discussing when presumptively reasonable sentence may be unreasonable); United

States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut that presumption), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4421 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2007 Entry ID: 3278674