Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01617/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01617-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Allen McDonald
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 05-1617

________________

United States of America,

Appellant,

v.

Jeffrey Allen McDonald,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: February 14, 2008 

 Filed: March 4, 2008

________________

Before BYE, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for

reconsideration in light of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ---, 128 S. Ct. 586 (Dec. 10,

2007). After reconsidering McDonald’s sentence as directed by the Supreme Court,

we affirm the district court’s sentence of 132 months’ imprisonment. 

Appellate Case: 05-1617 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2008 Entry ID: 3409108
1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

-2-

The Government appealed to this court the sentence pronounced by the district

court1

 after McDonald’s plea of guilty to two counts of attempting to manufacture

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B) and one count

of creating a substantial risk of harm to human life while manufacturing a controlled

substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 858. The district court calculated an advisory

sentencing guidelines range of 262 to 327 months and sentenced McDonald to 132

months’ imprisonment. This court vacated McDonald’s sentence and remanded for

resentencing because the factors considered by the district court did not “constitute

the type of compelling justifications necessary to justify a variance of the magnitude

awarded here.” Further discussion of the underlying facts in this matter may be found

at United States v. McDonald, 461 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2006), vacated, 552 U.S. ---, 128

S. Ct. 856 (Jan. 7, 2008).

In Gall, the Supreme Court reiterated that we must review a district court’s

sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. In

conducting this review, we must “first ensure that the district court committed no

significant procedural error . . . [and] then consider the substantive reasonableness of

the sentence imposed.” Id. “The fact that [we] might reasonably have concluded that

a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district

court.” Id.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court “rejected ‘an appellate rule that requires

“extraordinary” circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range.’”

United States v. McGhee, --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 141168, at *1 (8th Cir. Jan. 16, 2008)

(per curiam) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ---, 128 S. Ct. 586, 595 (Dec. 10,

2007)). “[W]e understand the Court’s opinion in Gall also to preclude a requirement

of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ to justify an ‘extraordinary variance,’ for that was

Appellate Case: 05-1617 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2008 Entry ID: 3409108
-3-

the only type of sentence outside the guidelines range to which this court had applied

an ‘extraordinary circumstances’ requirement.” Id. “Now bound by Gall, our

standard of review is more deferential than when we employed the ‘extraordinary

circumstances’ method.” United States v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808, 812 (8th Cir. 2008).

In our previous opinion, we found that the district court’s grant of a 130-month

variance to McDonald was based on McDonald’s work history and the district court’s

estimation of his likelihood of recidivism based on his age and the United States

Sentencing Commission Recidivism Study. We held that these reasons were not

“sufficient to support the extraordinary sentence reduction.” McDonald, 461 F.3d at

953. The district court also considered McDonald’s criminal history, his addiction to

methamphetamine and his mental health problems, the need for treatment and

rehabilitation, his daughter’s death, his employment history, and the need to protect

the public and impose a sentence that would minimize the likelihood of future

criminal conduct. Under the “more deferential” abuse-of-discretion review outlined

by the Supreme Court in Gall, we now find that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing McDonald to 132 months’ imprisonment. Accordingly, we

affirm McDonald’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1617 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2008 Entry ID: 3409108