United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2852

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joshua Lee Hunt

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge

____________

 Submitted: March 9, 2015

 Filed: April 9, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Hunt appeals the reasonableness of the 270-month prison sentence

imposed by the district court upon his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to 1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of methamphetamine, or 50 grams or more of actual (pure)

methamphetamine, after having been convicted of a felony drug offense, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846 and 851. Hunt concedes that his

sentence is within the applicable advisory Guidelines range of 270 months to life.2

He argues, however, that the district court erred by denying his motion for a variance

below the Guidelines range based on his father's role in introducing Hunt to both the

use and sale of methamphetamine beginning when Hunt was fifteen years old. 

 

Where, as here, the applicable advisory Guidelines range is undisputed, we

consider whether the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005). "We review the

imposition of sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range, under a

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040,

1044 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation and alterations omitted). Typically we accord a

"presumption of reasonableness" to sentencesthat are within the advisory Guidelines

range. United States v. Scales, 735 F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2013). However, in

imposing a sentence, a court may abuse its discretion by (1) failing to consider a

relevant factor that should receive significant weight; (2) giving significant weight

to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considering only the appropriate factors but

committing a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors. United States v.

Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008). "It is the defendant's burden to rebut

The district court concluded, without objection, that Hunt'stotal offense level

2

was 37 and that his criminal history category was VI due to his status as a career

offender. United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 4B1.1(b). This

rendered an advisoryGuidelines range of 360-months' imprisonment to life. U.S.S.G.

Ch. 5, Pt. A. The district court, however, granted the government's substantial

assistance motion for a 25% reduction in Hunt's sentence, thereby reducing Hunt's

advisory Guidelines range to 270 months to life. U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. 

-2-
the presumption [of reasonableness] and to show that the sentence should have been

lower." United States v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917, 926 (8th Cir. 2013). 

Hunt has failed to meet this burden. The sentencing record indicates the

district court permitted Hunt to explain the circumstances under which his father

introduced him to the use and sale of methamphetamine, and the court accepted as

true Hunt's account of these events. The district court also acknowledged that the

actions of Hunt's father likely influenced Hunt's decision to commit the present

offense of conviction. However, the district court also noted that Hunt had been

subjected to several intervening arrests and had participated in drug treatment

programs on at least four occasions. After weighing these factors, the court

determined that Hunt had been given ample opportunities to turn things around and

therefore was not entitled to a downward variance based upon his father's

reprehensible actions. Furthermore, in determining Hunt'ssentence, the district court

also considered the nature and circumstances of Hunt's offense, his large customer

base, his extensive and serious criminal record, the high purity of the

methamphetamine, and his history of non-compliance while on correctional

supervision. The record thus indicates the district court considered the appropriate

sentencing factors and committed no clear error in judgment in weighing these

factors. United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly,

Hunt's within-Guidelines range sentence is affirmed. 

______________________________

-3-