1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 07-1043/1044

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Katherine T. Williams, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 28, 2007 

 Filed: February 8, 2008

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Katherine Williams challenges the prison

sentences--totaling 168 months--the district court1

 imposed after she pleaded guilty

to distribution and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and failing to appear at sentencing,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). For reversal, she argues that the district court

erred in denying her an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1, and that the sentences are unreasonable.
-2-

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying an acceptanceof-responsibility reduction. See United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1122-

23 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; this court gives great deference to district

court’s denial of acceptance-of-responsibility request). Although Williams had

pleaded guilty, her subsequent actions--including absconding and resisting arrest--

were inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility, resulted in an obstruction-ofjustice enhancement, and were not justified by extraordinary circumstances. See

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2) (defendant’s acceptance of responsibility “may be

outweighed by conduct of the defendant that is inconsistent with such acceptance of

responsibility. A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment

under this section as a matter of right.”), (n.4) (conduct resulting in obstruction-ofjustice enhancement ordinarily indicates lack of acceptance of responsibility, except

in extraordinary cases); United States v. Campos, 362 F.3d 1013, 1016-17 (8th Cir.

2004) (extraordinary circumstances evaluation takes into account totality of

circumstances, including whether obstruction was isolated early incident or ongoing

attempt to obstruct prosecution, whether defendant voluntarily terminated his

obstruction or was stopped by law enforcement, and whether defendant admitted and

recanted his obstruction or denied it at sentencing (citing United States v. Honken,

184 F.3d 961, 968-69 (8th Cir. 1999)).

We further conclude that Williams’s combined prison sentences--at the bottom

of the applicable advisory Guidelines range--are not unreasonable and were not an

abuse of the district court’s discretion. The court expressly considered appropriate

factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as the Guidelines imprisonment range and

Williams’s character and history. Further, nothing in the record indicates that the

district court based the sentences on an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to consider

a relevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (4); Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007)

(“abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to appellate review of all sentencing

decisions—whether inside or outside the Guidelines range”); United States v. Booker,
-3-

543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005) (“The courts of appeals review sentencing decisions for

unreasonableness.”); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005)

(stating ways in which abuse of discretion may occur); see also Rita v. United States,

127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463-68 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness

for sentences within Guidelines range); United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932

(8th Cir. 2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________