1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1382

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Brandon Patrick Calmese, also known * as Renegade, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 18, 2010 Filed: October 21, 2010

___________ Before MUPRHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Brandon Patrick Calmese pled guilty to di stributing crack cocaine. The district court 1 sentenced Calmese to 130 months, th e low end of his guideline range. He appeals his sentence, and we affirm. Calmese argues that the district court abused its discreti on by adhering to the 70:1 crack to powder cocaine ratio laid out in the United States Sentencing Guidelines-2- rather than using a 1:1 ratio. He asserts that, in doing so, the district court imposed a greater than necessary sentence and cr eated an unwarranted sentencing disparity within the district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2006). Wefirst review the district court's sentence for significant procedural error, employing "'a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.'" United States v. Hayes , 518 F.3d 989, 995 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Calmese's sentence was procedurally sound. The court knew it had "wide discretion to vary," but reflected that wh ile it must "balance the discrepancy between the crack and the cocaine, [it] also ha[d] to look at the other factors that are involved." Sentencing Transcript at 32. Ultimatel y the district court found that Calmese's extensive criminal history warranted the se ntence imposed. The district court was not required to adopt what Calmese cites as negative public sentiment against the crack guideline, see18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and it did not abuse its considerable discretion by declining to equate crack and powder at sentencing. United States v. Saddler , 538 F.3d 879, 891 (8th Cir. 2008). Calmese also argues for the first time on appeal that the court's use of the 70:1 guideline ratio causes an unwarranted dispar ity because the district's other active judge routinely employs a 1:1 ratio. We review this issue for plain error. United States v. Woods , 603 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 2010). Calmese cannot meet that standard. The district court imposed a sentence within the guideline range after considering all of the statut ory factors. In a Rule 28(j) filing, Calmese cites a Department of Justice letter expressing concern about variation in sentencing subsequent to Booke r v. United States , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Letter from Jonathan J. Wroblewski to the Honorable William K. Sessions III, Chair, United States Sentencing Commission (June 28, 2010). This wa s not available to the district court, and the department's concern over a senten cing regime that has "largely lost its mooring to the sentencing guidelines," id. at 2, would hard ly have supported Calmese's request for a variance.-3- Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________