Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kevin William KREJCE, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-02
Citations: 276 F. App'x 526
Docket Number: No. 07-2197
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kevin William KREJCE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 526–526

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kevin William KREJCE, Appellant.
No. 07-2197.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2008.
Filed: May 2, 2008.
David Genrich, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
Caroline Durham, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
Kevin William Krejce, Elk River, MN, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Krejce appeals the 151-month prison term that the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He argues that his sentence is unreasonable and that the district court abused its discretion by not properly considering relevant factors.
When the applicable Guidelines range is undisputed, as it is here, we consider whether the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Mathis, 451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir.2006) (review for reasonableness is akin to review for abuse of discretion). We conclude that Krejee's sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range is not unreasonable. The record shows that the district court considered only relevant factors — including Krejee's two prior bank robbery convictions and his commission of this offense while on supervised release for a previous bank robbery, as well as the need to promote respect for the law and to afford adequate deterrence — and we see no clear error of judgment in the court's weighing of those factors. See United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir.2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1263, 170 L.Ed.2d 111 (2008); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005) (listing factors that might signal abuse of discretion); see also Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness).
The judgment is affirmed.
. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.