## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1596

___________ United States of America, *
* Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Glen David Holifield, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 20, 2010 Filed: September 29, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Glen D. Holifield pleaded guilty to th e offense of being in possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufactur e methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1). The district court 1 calculated an advisory Guidelines sentencing range of 151 to 188 months, based in part on Holifield's status as a career offender, and sentenced him to a 151-month term of imprisonment. Holifield appeals claiming the district court procedurally erred when it failed to adequate ly respond to arguments

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.raised in his sentencing memorandum, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

In reviewing a district court's sentence, we first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court commits procedural error if it fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors or fails to adequately e xplain the chosen sentence. See id. Holifield claims that the district court failed to consider and respond to the arguments raised in his sentencing memorandum, including arguments based on § 3553(a). Because Holifield failed to object at the time of sentencing, we review his claim for plain error, only reversing the sentence if the court committed error, that is plain, that affects his substantial rights, and that seriously affect s the fairness, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v. Starfield , 563 F.3d 673, 674 (8th Cir. 2009).

We conclude the district court did not commit plain error in failing to explicitly address the defendant's arguments. Typi cally, when a defendant raises non-frivolous arguments for a variance, the court will e xplain why it has rejected those arguments. United States v. Gray , 533 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 339 (2007)). Howeve r, we have stated the district court need only "set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he ha s considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority." United States v. Robinson , 516 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 2008). The context of our review is ba sed on the entire sentencing reco rd, not merely the district court's statements at the hearing. Gray , 533 F.3d at 946. We are satisfied based on our review of the record in this case th at the district court was aware of, and adequately considered, the defendant's ar guments and the § 3553(a) factors despite failing to explicitly address them. The district court in this case stated before sentencing, "I've received your sentencing memorandum and reviewed that closely," and thus considered and implicitly rejectedthe defendant's arguments when it imposed

-2-an enhanced sentence. See United States v. Barron , 557 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding the district court adequately considered defendant's arguments, despite not expressly rejecting them, because th e court stated it studied the memorandum setting forth the argument). Further, at the time of sentencing, the court referred to the provisions of § 3553(a) and extensively di scussed the seriousness of Holifield's criminal and drug history, acknowledging that his prior offenses, time in prison, and failed attempts to overcome his drug addiction are "why the sentencing guidelines are so high." Gray , 533 F.3d at 946 (concluding the distri ct court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, even absent an expre ss reference to them, in light of court's extensive discussion of defendant's history and the nature of his offenses). Although the district court did not expressly address Holifield's arguments or the § 3553(a) factors, we are satisfied the court adequate ly considered them and did not plainly err.

Finding no procedural error, we now cons ider Holifield's cl aim his sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferen tial abuse-of-discre tion standard. Id. Because Holifield's sentence was within the Guidelines range, we presume it is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Milk , 447 F.3d 593, 603 (8th Cir. 2006). However, a district court abuses its di scretion if it "fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or consid ers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error in judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Kowal , 527 F.3d 741, 749 (8th Cir. 2008). Holifield claims th e district court erred in weighing proper factors, including his career offender status. 2He asserts the court should have

2 Holifield challenges the application of the career offender enhancement as a procedural error, but we conclude it is mo re appropriately part of his argument that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the recordconclusively establishes Holifield's career offender status. See United States v. Jordan , 573 F.3d 586, 589-90 (8th Cir. 2009) (treating defendant's claim th at the district court erred in not granting a variance from a sentence based in part on defendant's status as a career-offender as
-3-mitigated his sentence based on his substan ce abuse problems and the low severity of his prior offenses. He also argues thatapplying the career offender enhancement made his sentence greater th an necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. Holifield argues the recommended Guidelin es range without the career offender enhancement, 57 to 71 months, would be more appropriate.

The record indicates the district court addressed Holifield's substance abuse problems, considered his criminal history, the nature of his prior offenses, and, weighing only proper factors, sentenced Ho lifield at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. See Starfield , 563 F.3d at 676 (concluding court did not err in weighing factors and imposing a sentence within the Guidelines range when it considered defendant's substance abuse problems, the Presentence Investigation Report, and the factual circumstances of th e defendant's offense). We see no reason to conclude the district court erred inweighing the sentencing factors, including applying the career offender enhancement, and Holifield has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-range sentence is reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

a challenge to the sentence's substan tive reasonableness given that defendant indisputably qualified as a career offender).
-4-