Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03456/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03456-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin F. Baker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3456

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Marvin F. Baker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2007

Filed: June 26, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal of his 33-month prison sentence for possessing a

firearm with an obliterated serial number, Marvin F. Baker (Baker) challenges his

sentence as unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for failure to give appropriate

weight to mitigating factors in his criminal history, such as his age, and for making

a clear error in judgment when balancing the § 3553(a) factors. 

Appellate Case: 06-3456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2007 Entry ID: 3322736
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude the district court1

 did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing Baker to 33 months’ imprisonment. See United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276

(2005). We afford a presumption of reasonableness to the district court’s sentence,

which fell at the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See Rita v.

United States, No. 06-5754, 2007 WL 1772146, at *__ (U.S. June 21, 2007)

(affirming the application of a presumption of reasonableness by a court of appeals

to a district court’s sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing

Guidelines); United States v. Likens, 464 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 2006) (“The

guideline range, though advisory, is presumed to be reasonable.” (citation omitted)).

The district court appropriately weighed Baker’s youth and relatively minor past

crimes against other § 3553(a) factors, such as the need for a significant prison

sentence to halt Baker’s pattern of criminal conduct and the need for a sentence long

enough to provide Baker with meaningful rehabilitation and training. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1) (history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(B) (afford adequate

deterrence), and (a)(2)(D) (provide defendant with needed educational or vocational

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in most effective manner);

United States v. Swehla, 442 F.3d 1143, 1145-47 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding sentence

and finding criminal history not overstated where the defendant committed many

crimes from ages 15 to 18). 

Therefore, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2007 Entry ID: 3322736