*

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

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2708

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Jessie J. Reams, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2006

Filed: February 21, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Jessie J. Reams threatened his roommate with a gun, police arrived and

found the gun in Reams’s pocket. Reams later pleaded guilty to being a felon in

possession of a firearm. Before sentencing, Reams filed a memorandum about the

presentence report (PSR) attaching a handwritten letter from his roommate, Keith

Leeper, explaining the circumstances of Reams’s possession. Reams also filed a

motion seeking to subpoena recordings of jailhouse telephone conversations between

himself and Leeper, and to present oral testimony at sentencing. The district court*
-2-

issued an order stating it would not preclude Reams from presenting testimony about

the incident if he contended the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident were

relevant to sentencing. The court also stated, however, that Reams had not shown

cause for the issuance of any subpoena. During the sentencing hearing, the court

admitted all proffered exhibits. At the hearing’s conclusion, the court observed,

“While the circumstances of the defendant’s possession of the firearm are somewhat

different than the average case that we may see in court, I can’t say that the possession

is less serious than the average case that we see in court.” The court then sentenced

Reams within the applicable Guidelines range to thirty months in prison and three

years of supervised release. 

On appeal, Reams contends the district court committed error by denying his

subpoena request. Reams sought to obtain the recording to show the circumstances

surrounding his firearm possession. The recording was cumulative, however, because

the district court had received Leeper’s letter into evidence and the circumstances

surrounding Reams’s possession were essentially unchallenged. See United States v.

Wyman, 724 F.3d 684, 687 (8th Cir. 1984) (court may properly deny subpoena seeking

cumulative evidence). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

a subpoena. 

Reams also argues his post-Booker sentence is unreasonable. United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We disagree. The court determined the applicable

advisory Guidelines range, considered and denied Reams’s motion for a downward

departure from the range, and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range after

considering all the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Vasquez, No.

05-1644, 2006 WL 47514, at * 4 (8th Cir. Jan. 11, 2006). The court considered the

circumstances surrounding Reams’s offense, as Ream desired, but concluded the

circumstances did not warrant lenity. Reams’s sentence is not unreasonable. See id.

We thus affirm Reams’s sentence. 

______________________________