Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01147/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01147-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Chad Wetzel
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1147

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Chad Wetzel, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 4, 2007

 Filed: December 10, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chad Wetzel pleaded guilty to failure to collect and pay over taxes, in violation

of 26 U.S.C. § 7202; theft and embezzlement from an employee benefit plan, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 664; and false oath and account in a bankruptcy proceeding,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(2), each of which was punishable by a maximum of

5 years in prison. Using an undisputed advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of

63-78 months, and having addressed Wetzel’s arguments for a lower sentence, the

district court1

 imposed two concurrent 60-month prison terms and a consecutive 12-

Appellate Case: 07-1147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380507
-2-

month prison term. Wetzel appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion and

imposed an unreasonable sentence by giving undue weight to the Guidelines, and by

inadequately considering mitigating circumstances and the need to avoid unwarranted

sentence disparities.

We review a sentence for reasonableness in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005); United States v. Boss, 493 F.3d 986, 987 (8th Cir. 2007).

We find no abuse of discretion here. First, Wetzel’s disparity argument fails because,

as the district court correctly determined, his case and criminal history were not at all

similar to those of another individual who owned the predecessor to Wetzel’s

business. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (court is to consider “need to avoid unwarranted

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found

guilty of similar conduct”). Further, our review of the record convinces us that the

district court considered and rejected Wetzel’s arguments regarding mitigating

circumstances, properly took into account only relevant section 3553(a) factors, and

did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing these factors. See United States

v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentencing court abuses its

discretion if it fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant

weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only

appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing them). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2007 Entry ID: 3380507