1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 05-2587

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Robert L. Williams,

 Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the District of

Nebraska.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: March 13, 2006 

 Filed: May 12, 2006

________________

Before COLLOTON, HEANEY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM. 

Robert L. Williams pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

 sentenced Williams to 41

months’ imprisonment. Williams appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court

gave undue weight to the United States Sentencing Guidelines or improperly treated

them as mandatory in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and
-2-

that the district court improperly balanced the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We affirm.

A sentence falling within the advisory guidelines sentencing range is

presumptively reasonable and will be disturbed only if the sentencing court abused

its discretion by giving significant weight to an improper factor, failing to consider

a factor that deserved significant weight or committing a clear error in judgment when

weighing appropriate factors. United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 915 (2006).

We do not require “‘robotic incantations’ that each statutory factor has been

considered.” United States v. Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted). Instead, it is enough if it is clear that the guidelines were applied in an

advisory fashion and that the district court appropriately considered the nonguidelines factors. Id. 

As calculated by the district court, Williams’s advisory guidelines sentencing

range was 41 to 57 months. Williams’s 41-month sentence falls at the low end of that

range and is presumptively reasonable. Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse

of discretion. The record does not suggest that the district court applied the

guidelines in a mandatory fashion or gave them undue weight. Instead, the district

court accepted a plea agreement in which the United States agreed to recommend a

sentence at the low end of the guidelines sentencing range, and the district court gave

Williams just such a sentence. It is also clear that the district court considered factors

beyond the guidelines sentencing range. Specifically, the district court heard

argument concerning Williams’s personal characteristics (e.g., age and health). The

district court opined, however, that a lengthier sentence (as opposed to the probation

requested by Williams) was appropriate because lighter sentences served by Williams

previously had proven to be an insufficient deterrent and because Williams

knowingly possessed firearms for several years despite his felon status. The record

further reflects that, but for the plea agreement, the district court would have

sentenced Williams to an even longer period of imprisonment.
-3-

As we find that the district court properly calculated the advisory guidelines

range, considered the non-guidelines factors and arrived at a reasonable sentence, we

affirm.

_____________________________