United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2649

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

James Paul Hubbell,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: April 15, 2016

 Filed: August 9, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, CircuitJudges, and MOODY, DistrictJudge. 1

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Paul Hubbell pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. The

The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. 
district court sentenced Hubbell to 140 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Hubbell 2

argues that the court erred in denying a downward adjustment under the advisory

guidelines for a mitigating role in the offense. He also contends that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Beginning around June 2014, Hubbell agreed with Michael Joslin and others

to distribute methamphetamine in both Riverside and Iowa City, Iowa. Between

August 2014 and December 2014, an undercover officer and a confidential source

made multiple controlled purchases of purported or actual methamphetamine from

Hubbell. During a transaction in December, law enforcement officers took Hubbell

into custody. After officers advised Hubbell of his rights, he admitted to distributing

methamphetamine for approximately six months and stated that his main source of

supply was Joslin.

A grand jury charged Hubbell with one count of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine. Hubbell entered into a plea agreement with the government, and

pleaded guilty to that count. Hubbell admitted to obtaining, purchasing, and

distributing at least 100 grams of actual methamphetamine. His criminal history

included two prior convictions for drug trafficking, as well as convictions for drunk

driving, possession of marijuana (thrice), domestic abuse assault, domestic assault

causing injury while displaying a dangerous weapon, trespass (twice), and theft.

At sentencing, the district court found that Hubbell was responsible for a

quantity of drugs that resulted in a base offense level of 30 under the advisory

guideline. The court also found that Hubbell qualified as a career offender based on

the two prior drug-trafficking convictions. Because the career-offender guideline

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

2

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
provided for a higher offense level of 32, the court applied that level in accordance

with USSG § 4B1.1(b).

Hubbell asserted that he was entitled to a downward adjustment under USSG

§ 3B1.2 for playing a minor role in the conspiracy. The district court, after noting

that it might be “an academic question,” found that the record did not support a

downward adjustment for a mitigating role in the offense.

After subtracting three offense levelsfor acceptance of responsibility from the

career-offender offense level of 32, the court arrived at a total offense level of 29. 

The court then concluded that criminal history category VI, which applied because

of Hubbell’s career-offender status, overstated Hubbell’s history, and departed

downward to category V. That resulted in a sentencing range of 140 to 175 months’

imprisonment. The court sentenced Hubbell to 140 months in prison and three years

of supervised release.

Hubbell challenges the sentence imposed by the district court. Hubbell first

contendsthat the district court procedurally erred in denying a downward adjustment

under the advisory guidelinesfor a mitigating role in the offense. See USSG § 3B1.2. 

But as the district court suggested, the applicability of the adjustment is an academic

question. When a defendant is sentenced as a career offender, adjustments for role

in the offense under Chapter Three, Part B do not apply. See USSG § 4B1.1; United

States v. Warren, 361 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2004). Whether or not Hubbell

qualified for a mitigating role adjustment, his offense level (before considering

acceptance of responsibility) was set at 32 by the career-offender guideline. It is

therefore unnecessary to address Hubbell’s claim of procedural error.

Hubbell also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the district court improperly weighed his prior criminal history, his culpability

relative to Joslin, and the likelihood that Hubbell would commit further crimes. See

-3-
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Hubbell asserts that his prior convictions involved small-scale

drug dealing and that he should not be treated as a career offender. We review the

substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We presume that a sentence

within the advisory guideline range is reasonable. United States v. Ruelas-Mendez,

556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir. 2009); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347

(2007).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. The court “has wide latitude to

weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than

others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d

374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009). The court heard and considered Hubbell’s arguments about

his prior convictions, his relative culpability, and the asserted unlikelihood of

recidivism. The court took into account the nature of Hubbell’s criminal history by

departing downward, but also properly considered the need to avoid unwarranted

sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(6). The court reasonably concluded that a sentence at the bottom of the

post-departure guideline range was appropriate, given the seriousness of Hubbell’s

offense and his criminal history.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-