United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3824

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Robert Joseph Downwind

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: October 21, 2013

 Filed: December 2, 2013 

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

Robert Joseph Downwind pled guilty to one count of burglary in the first degree

in Indian country. The district court1

 sentenced Downwind to a prison term of 151

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Minnesota.
months. On appeal, Downwind argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND2

During the early morning of July 24, 2011, on the Red Lake Indian Reservation

in Minnesota, Downwind, a Native American, cut the screen of an open window and

entered the home of S.D.R., a sixty-six year old Native American woman, without

permission and with the intention to steal. Downwind encountered S.D.R. and briefly

struggled with her, took her cane, and pushed her to the ground. He then stole

S.D.R.’s purse and fled the home. Within an hour, officers arrested Downwind, and

S.D.R. identified him as the burglar. Two days later, officers found S.D.R.’s purse in

Downwind’s father’s home. Downwind pled guilty to burglary in the first degree in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151 and 1153 and Minnesota statute § 609.582, subd. 1(c). 

At the sentencing hearing, the district court found Downwind’s United States

Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) adjusted base offense level to be 29 and criminal

history category to be VI, resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 151 to 188

months. The district court heard both Downwind’s allocution and defense counsel’s

description of Downwind’s difficult and abusive upbringing and chronic substance

abuse. The district court stated it had read the PSR, examined the pertinent case law,

and “reviewed all submissions of counsel regarding their sentencing positions on this

matter.” Noting it had “reviewed the factors” dictated by 18 U.S.C. § 3553[a], the

district court found Downwind “is a career criminal” and “the offense involved in this

matter is one that makes the guideline calculations reasonable.” The district court then

sentenced Downwind to 151 months imprisonment. The district court acknowledged

Downwind had an “unfortunate history” as a child and an adult and the sentence was

2

Absent any objection from Downwind, the district court adopted the factual

statements in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) for the sentencing hearing. 

-2-
“an extreme amount of time,” yet the district court explained, “the violence that was

involved in this case cannot be excused,” and the sentence would promote “safety in

the community.” Downwind objected to the sentence at the hearing and now appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

 In reviewing a district court’s sentencing decision, an appellate court “must

first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error.” Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Downwind does not allege any procedural

error. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)

(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “When we review the imposition of sentences, . . . we

apply ‘a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” United States v. Hayes, 518 F.3d

989, 995 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 41). “A district court abuses its

discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received

significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or

(3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a

clear error of judgment.” Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (quotation omitted). Yet “[a]

mechanical recitation of the § 3553(a) factors is unnecessary, . . . particularly when

a judge elects simply to apply the advisory guideline range to a particular case.” 

United States v. Freeman, 718 F.3d 1002, 1005-06 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting United

States v. Zastrow, 534 F.3d 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2008)). “Where, as here, a sentence

imposed is within the advisory guideline range, we typically accord it a presumption

of reasonableness.” United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625, 634 (8th Cir. 2010).

Downwind argues the district court abused its sentencing discretion because the

151-month sentence is “substantively unreasonable.” Downwind claims the district

court did not place enough emphasis on mitigating factors such as his unfortunate

childhood and his drug addiction, and a lesser sentence, coupled with drug addiction

treatment, would accomplish the goals of sentencing. “Although [Downwind]

suggests we could reasonably conclude his case warrants a less severe sentence, this

fact standing alone is not sufficient grounds for reversal.” Freeman, 718 F.3d at 1006. 

-3-
Upon careful review of the sentencing record, we conclude the district court

accurately determined the applicable advisory Guidelines range and appropriately

considered and weighed the § 3553(a) factors in light of Downwind’s criminal and

personal history. Based on this violent home invasion and physical attack and on

Downwind’s individual history, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

sentencing Downwind to 151 months imprisonment, a presumptively reasonable

sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range.

III. CONCLUSION

Downwind’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable, and we affirm.

______________________________

-4-