Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01966/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01966-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellee
Isaac Vuittonet
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1966

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Isaac Vuittonet, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 5, 2007

Filed: December 12, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Isaac Vuittonet appeals the 210-month prison term that the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. He argues that his sentence is

unreasonable because the district court overvalued the seriousness of his criminal

history, the theoretical deterrent effect of imposing a lengthy sentence, and the

generalized need to avoid sentence disparities. 

Appellate Case: 07-1966 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2007 Entry ID: 3381431
-2-

When the applicable Guidelines range is undisputed, as it is here, we consider

whether the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005); United States v. Haack, 403

F.3d 997, 1003 (8th. Cir. 2005). We conclude that Vuittonet’s sentence at the bottom

of the advisory Guidelines range is not unreasonable. The record shows that the

district court considered only relevant factors--including Vuittonet’s prior convictions

and probationary sentences for possessing large amounts of marijuana, his

commission of this even more serious offense while on probation, and the need to

deter such activity--and we see no clear error of judgment in the court’s weighing of

those factors. See United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentence

within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); Haack, 403 F.3d at

1003-04 (describing how court may abuse its discretion in its consideration of

sentencing factors); see also United States v. Rita, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007)

(approving appellate presumption of reasonableness).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1966 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2007 Entry ID: 3381431