Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02079/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02079-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Octavio Barron
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2079

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Octavio Barron, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2006

Filed: February 17, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Octavio Barron pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute five hundred grams or more of methamphetamine. The

presentence report (PSR) recommended an advisory guidelines range of 121 to 151

months. Barron did not object to the PSR. Before sentencing, Barron filed a motion

requesting a downward departure on the ground that his criminal history category of

IV oversstated the seriousness of some of his earlier offenses–property damage, theft,

and possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Barron argued the district court*

Appellate Case: 05-2079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2006 Entry ID: 2011109
-2-

should reduce his criminal history by two points, placing him in a guidelines range

of 108 to 135 months. After observing that a statutory mandatory minimum of 120

months applied, the court stated it had carefully reviewed Barron’s downward

departure motion and would deny it because Barron’s criminal history was not

“overstated either from the viewpoint of the description of the criminal behavior or

its predictive value [for] recidivism.” The court sentenced Barron to 136 months in

prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Barron argues the district

court committed error in denying his downward departure motion. 

Section 4A1.3(b)(1) of the federal sentencing guidelines provides a downward

departure may be warranted if reliable information shows a defendant’s criminal

history category substantially overrepresents the seriousness of the defendant’s

criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. In the

case at hand, the district court acknowledged Barron had filed a motion for a

downward departure based on the overrepresentation of his criminal history. The

district court clearly recognized its authority to depart and simply chose not to do so.

Under the circumstances, the district court’s refusal to depart is not reviewable.

United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, the district

court correctly calculated the applicable guidelines range and imposed a sentence

reflecting consideration of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Thus, Barron’s

sentence is reasonable. 

Accordingly, we affirm Barron’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2006 Entry ID: 2011109