Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01575/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01575-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Leon Roberson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1575

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Robert Leon Roberson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 9, 2010

Filed: April 6, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Leon Roberson appeals from the sentence imposed following the second

remand of his case for resentencing, arguing that the district court1

 did not properly

recognize its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), and

failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm.

After Roberson was convicted of certain drug charges, the district court

determined that the applicable guidelines range was 188 to 235 months and sentenced

Appellate Case: 09-1575 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651811
-2-

Roberson to 198 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, we affirmed the conviction, but

remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

United States v. Roberson, 439 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2006). At the first resentencing, the

district court determined that the applicable guidelines range remained 188 to 235

months and again sentenced Roberson to 198 months’ imprisonment. On appeal from

resentencing, we concluded that the district court had adequately considered the §

3553(a) factors and had adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence.

United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2008). Although the

sentence was reasonable, we remanded the case for resentencing in light of

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). Id. at 995. 

At Roberson’s second resentencing, the district court determined that the

applicable guideline range was 151 to 188 months based on the amended crack

cocaine guidelines. The district court explained:

[A]t the time you first were sentenced, we didn’t have the ability to

sentence outside the guideline range. Now, obviously, we do if that’s

appropriate. We sentenced you again. . . . [W]e didn’t have the case that

said you can take into account the crack cocaine, powder cocaine

[disparity], so then we took that. And you’ve been convicted of a very,

very serious crime, and you get a very serious sentence, but it’s less now

than it was before. 

After considering Roberson’s personal characteristics and the threat he may pose to

the community upon release, the district court sentenced Roberson to 151 months’

imprisonment. 

We reject Roberson’s contention that the district court failed to recognized its

discretion under Kimbrough. In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court held that a

sentencing court acts within its discretion when it concludes that the crack/powder

cocaine disparity yields a sentence greater than necessary to serve the objectives of

Appellate Case: 09-1575 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651811
-3-

sentencing. 552 U.S. at 110. In the present case, the district court recognized its

power to consider the sentencing disparity and decided to impose a sentence within

the guidelines range. See United States v. Johnson, 574 F.3d 570, 573 (8th Cir. 2009)

(affirming the district court’s sentence because the court “acknowledged its power to

vary from the Guidelines sentence to address the sentencing disparity and chose not

to”).

Roberson’s argument that the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a)

factors is without merit. The district court acknowledged the seriousness of the

offense, the need to protect the community from further crimes, and Roberson’s

personal characteristics. Although Roberson contends that the district court did not

mention the need to provide Roberson with education, training, treatment or medical

care, a mechanical recitation of the sentencing factors is not required. See United

States v. Otterson, 506 F.3d 1098, 1100 (8th Cir. 2007). We are satisfied that the

district court adequately considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a). 

The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1575 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651811