1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2792

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Gerald Haley, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2008

Filed: July 1, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Haley pled guilty to one count of bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a). The district court1

 sentenced him to 210 months’ imprisonment, three

years of supervised release, and a mandatory assessment of $100. Haley appeals his

sentence as unreasonable. We affirm.

We review a district court’s sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-ofdiscretion standard. United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2008).
-2-

A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court, inter alia, “fail[ed] to

consider the § 3553(a) factors, . . . or fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen

sentence.” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)). A sentence

is substantively unreasonable if, considering the totality of the circumstances, we

conclude that the district court has “committ[ed] a clear error of judgment by arriving

at a sentence that lies outside the limited range of choice dictated by the facts of the

case.” United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005); see Gall, 128 S.

Ct. at 597. A sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of

substantive reasonableness on appeal. Robinson, 516 F.3d at 717.

Haley argues that the district court failed to properly consider and articulate the

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). To “properly analyze[] the

relevant sentencing factors,” a district court is not required to provide a “full opinion

in every case,” but must “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own

legal decisionmaking authority.” Robinson, 516 F.3d at 718 (quoting Rita, 127 S. Ct.

at 2468). In determining whether a district court has adequately explained its reasons

for imposing a particular sentence, the context for the appellate court’s review is the

entire sentencing record, not merely the district court’s statements at the hearing. Id.

Haley also argues that his sentence, which is at the top of the sentencing range

recommended by the Guidelines, is unsupported by the facts of his case.

Haley’s plea agreement stipulated that the parties would request that he be

sentenced within the applicable Guidelines range. The district court was not bound

by the terms of the plea agreement, however, and the presentencing report suggested

that an upward departure might be in order because Haley’s criminal history indicated

a lifetime of recidivism and violent crime. Thus, Haley’s arguments at the sentencing

hearing were presented primarily as resisting any upward departure and only

secondarily as arguments for a sentence at the lower end of the Guidelines range. See

Sent. Tr. at 4-6. Haley argued for leniency on the basis of his remorse, his family, his
-3-

cooperation with authorities, and his use of an air pistol rather than a firearm in the

commission of the bank robbery.

After hearing all of Haley’s arguments, the district court stated:

Based upon the serious nature of the instant offense, which involved a

bank robbery in which the defendant used a dangerous weapon, and in

consideration of defendant’s significant criminal history which includes

five crimes of violence, including a previous bank robbery, murder, and

attempted murder, and the defendant was on parole for a crime of

violence at the time he committed the instant offense, the following

sentence would seem to address the sentencing objectives of punishment,

general deterrence, and incapacitation.

Sent. Tr. at 8.

We are satisfied that the district court was familiar with Haley’s history,

characteristics, and conduct and that it took those factors into account as it considered

Haley’s arguments and imposed sentence. Haley’s criminal history gives the lie to his

contention that the district court gave inadequate consideration to the § 3553(a)

factors. Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence, which falls within the agreedupon Guidelines range, is not unreasonable.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________