Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02941/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02941-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Antonio Lucio Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2941

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Marco Antonio Lucio Garcia, also * District of Minnesota.

known as Jocat Octavio Janez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2007

Filed: June 6, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marco Antonio Lucio Garcia challenges the 168-month prison sentence

imposed by the district court1

 following his guilty plea to a drug offense, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846. Garcia argues on appeal that the district court

erroneously interpreted and applied the advisory Guidelines by treating U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1 as mandatory, and thus the court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to

sentence him to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2941 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316614
-2-

We conclude that the district court did not commit any legal error in its

interpretation or application of the Guidelines. The record indicates that the court

properly determined Garcia’s applicable advisory Guidelines range to be 188 to 235

months based in part on his career-offender status; that the court did not find departure

under the Guidelines warranted; and that, in consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, the court concluded a non-Guidelines sentence of 168 months in prison was

reasonable. See United States v. Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d 622, 631 (8th Cir. 2006)

(describing three-step process for determining appropriate sentence).

Because the court considered only relevant factors, including Garcia’s history

and characteristics, and gave such factors appropriate weight, we find no abuse of

discretion and conclude that Garcia’s sentence is reasonable. See United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed

for abuse of discretion which may occur if: (1) court failed to consider relevant factor

that should have received significant weight; (2) court gave significant weight to

improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) court considered only appropriate factors but in

weighing those factors committed clear error of judgment).

Finally, we find no merit to Garcia’s contention that the district court

mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to sentence him to 120 months in prison. The

court clearly understood its authority to sentence Garcia below his advisory

Guidelines range: the court granted him a 20-month downward variance. Ultimately,

however, the court did not consider 120 months to be a reasonable sentence in light

of Garcia’s repeated offenses.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2941 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2007 Entry ID: 3316614