Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02198/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Caldwell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2198

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

James E. Caldwell, also known as *

“P”, also known as Pencil, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2007

Filed: July 10, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James E. Caldwell challenges the sentence of four concurrent terms of 100

months in prison that the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to four counts

of crack cocaine distribution in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).

Caldwell argues on appeal that the sentence was unreasonable because the district

court erroneously concluded that it lacked discretion to vary below the advisory

Guidelines range based on the sentencing differential between crack and powder

Appellate Case: 06-2198 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2007 Entry ID: 3327931
-2-

cocaine offenses, and because the Sentencing Commission’s criticism of the

differential in its reports concerning federal cocaine sentencing policy constitutes a

mitigating factor that the court should have considered pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a).

A sentence within the advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.

See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840

(2005). The record indicates that the district court considered the disparate penalties

for crack offenses and the Sentencing Commission’s reports to the extent permitted

by our holding in United States v. Spears, 469 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

Caldwell has not identified any section 3553(a) factor that the district court

improperly weighed or irrelevant factor upon which the court unduly relied. See

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005). We find no abuse of

discretion and conclude that Caldwell’s sentence is reasonable. See id. at 1003-04.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2198 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2007 Entry ID: 3327931