Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03164/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Fay Jeremiah
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3164

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Brian Fay Jeremiah, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2006

Filed: May 3, 2006 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Brian Fay Jeremiah pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2425 (2000) for

using interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor "with the intent to

entice, encourage, offer, or solicit" criminal sexual activity, and the District Court

sentenced Jeremiah to twenty-seven months' imprisonment. Jeremiah appealed his

sentence, raising a challenge based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

On appeal, a panel of this Court vacated Jeremiah's sentence and remanded his case

to the District Court for resentencing. United States v. Jeremiah, 135 Fed. App'x 3

(8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unpublished). At his resentencing hearing, Jeremiah

requested a variance from the advisory Guidelines range based on the potential

disparity between the sentence he might have received had he been convicted in

Appellate Case: 05-3164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040327
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

2

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2000) instructs district courts to consider "the need to

avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who

have been found guilty of similar conduct." 

-2-

Arkansas state court and the sentence he faced as a result of his conviction on the

federal charge. The District Court1

 refused to vary from the advisory Guidelines range

on this basis, sentencing Jeremiah to the same twenty-seven-month term of

imprisonment originally imposed. Jeremiah appeals, arguing that the District Court

was required to consider the potential federal/state sentencing disparity under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2000)2

 and that the court's failure to do so resulted in an

unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

Although application of the Sentencing Guidelines is no longer mandatory,

district courts are still required to consult the Guidelines and take them into account

in calculating a defendant's sentence. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264

(2005). A district court must calculate a defendant's advisory Guidelines sentencing

range based on his total offense level, criminal history category, and any appropriate

departures. See United States v. Shannon, 414 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2005). The

court may also vary from the advisory Guidelines range based on the factors set forth

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as long as the resulting sentence is reasonable. See Booker,

543 U.S. at 261; United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005).

Proper application of the Guidelines "remains the critical starting point" for fashioning

a reasonable sentence under § 3553(a), United States v. Lindquist, 421 F.3d 751, 753

(8th Cir. 2005), and a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range is

presumed to be reasonable, see United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). In determining whether a district court properly

calculated a defendant's Guidelines sentencing range, we review the court's findings

of fact for clear error and its interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo.

Appellate Case: 05-3164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040327
-3-

See Mashek, 406 F.3d at 1017. We review the ultimate sentence for reasonableness

in light of the factors described in § 3553(a). See United States v. May, 413 F.3d 841,

844 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 672 (2005). 

The District Court properly calculated Jeremiah's Guidelines sentencing range,

and Jeremiah does not argue otherwise. Rather, Jeremiah's sole argument on appeal

is that in order to impose a reasonable sentence, the District Court was required by §

3553(a)(6) to consider the sentences imposed in Arkansas state courts for comparable

conduct by defendants similarly situated to Jeremiah and to impose a sentence

designed to diminish the disparity between the two. This argument is unavailing.

In United States v. Deitz, 991 F.2d 443, 448 (8th Cir. 1993), we held that "the

possible discrepancy between state and federal sentences is a factor the [Sentencing]

Commission considered but chose not to account for in the Guidelines." We reasoned

that the "Commission's goal of imposing uniformity upon federal sentences for

similarly situated defendants would be impeded, not furthered," if potential

federal/state sentencing discrepancies were considered. Id. at 447; see also United

States v. Snyder, 136 F.3d 65, 69 (1st Cir. 1998) (declining to consider federal/state

sentencing disparity as a valid basis for downward departure under the Guidelines);

United States v. Searcy, 132 F.3d 1421, 1422 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (stating

that consideration of state penalties would "undermine the goal of uniformity" in

federal sentences); United States v. Haynes, 985 F.2d 65, 69–70 (2d Cir. 1993) (noting

that departure from Guidelines sentence based on federal/state sentencing disparity

would "surely undermine Congress' stated goal of uniformity in sentencing"); United

States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 962 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that departure from

Guidelines sentence based on federal/state sentencing disparity is impermissible), cert.

denied, 506 U.S. 979 (1992), and 507 U.S. 929 (1993). Although our decision in

Deitz predates the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Booker that the Guidelines are

merely advisory, we see nothing in Booker that casts doubt on our decision in Deitz.

Unwarranted sentencing disparities among federal defendants remains the only

Appellate Case: 05-3164 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040327
3

In United States v. Winters, 416 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2005), we affirmed a

sentence exceeding the advisory Guidelines range as reasonable "based on all the

factors listed" in § 3553(a) and rejected the defendant's argument that he was entitled

to a sentence within the Guidelines range. The dissent in Winters noted that the

District Court apparently erred by considering state-law sentences for the same

conduct in imposing the defendant's sentence, 416 F.3d at 863 (Heaney, J.,

dissenting), but this argument was not raised by the defendant and thus was not

addressed by the Court.

-4-

consideration under § 3553(a)(6)—both before and after Booker.

3

 See United States

v. Clark, 434 F.3d 684, 687 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting post-Booker that the "sole

concern" of § 3553(a)(6) is disparities among sentences for federal defendants). 

The District Court was neither required nor permitted under § 3553(a)(6) to

consider a potential federal/state sentencing disparity in imposing Jeremiah's sentence.

Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court properly calculated Jeremiah's

advisory Guidelines sentencing range, properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, and

imposed a reasonable sentence. We affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3164 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040327