United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1212

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Broc Todd Waltermeyer

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

____________

 Submitted: January 8, 2018

 Filed: March 30, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Broc Todd Waltermeyer challenges the sentence imposed after he pleaded

guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more ofmethamphetamine or 500 grams

or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. We affirm.
The district court determined that Waltermeyer was a career offender under

1

§ 4B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (Guidelines or U.S.S.G.). His

criminal history category was VI, his total offense level was 34, and his Guidelines

sentencing range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The court granted the

government’s motion for a downward departure based on the substantial assistance

Waltermeyer provided to authorities, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, but deniedWaltermeyer’s

motion for a departure or variance based on his claim that his criminal history

category substantially over-represented the seriousness of his criminal history, see

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). After determining that Waltermeyer’s predeparture sentence was 262 months’ imprisonment, the court granted a twenty-five

percent reduction and imposed a 196-month sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Waltermeyer’s motion for a downward variance. The district court described

Waltermeyer’s criminal conduct as “pretty consistent over a long period of time,”

characterizing it as “the kind of pattern of conduct that results in a guideline

determination that we have a career offender.” We find no error in the district court’s

observation that “this is exactly the kind of case that this structure in the sentencing

law is designed to address.” See United States v. Godinez, 474 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th

Cir. 2007) (upholding denial of variance where court had considered the § 3553(a)

factors and decided to impose a sentence within the Guidelines range); see also

United States v. Deans, 590 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as “frivolous”

defendant’s argument that he deserved a downward variance in light of his decadeslong criminal history that included nineteen adult convictions, five of which resulted

in criminal history points). 

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

1

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
We also conclude that the district court adequately considered Waltermeyer’s

medical condition and that the Guidelines-range sentence issubstantively reasonable. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (“If the sentence is within the

Guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption

of reasonableness.”).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-