Opinion ID: 145470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rund's Sentence

Text: Rund also argues the district court erred in failing to explain his sentence and discuss the § 3553(a) factors. Rund concedes he failed to object at the time of sentencing, and therefore, we may only review the issue for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir.2009) (citation omitted) (Procedural sentencing errors are forfeited, and therefore may be reviewed only for plain error, if no objection was raised in the district court.). During Rund's sentencing hearing, the district court stated, I'll work through the guidelines and the factors listed in 18 United States Code Section 3553 and come up with a sentencing guideline range, and I'll sentence within that range, unless there is a reasonable ground not to. The district court correctly calculated Rund's advisory Guidelines range, finding, based upon Rund's offense level of 19 and criminal history category of I, Rund's Guidelines range was 30 to 37 months imprisonment. The district court then heard testimony from Floyd Hancock, the senior investigator of the Federal Public Defender's Office, who offered a declaration from Rund's treating physician documenting Rund's various medical conditions (heart and diabetes) and stating Rund's physical condition was getting progressively worse. Rund's counsel emphasized Rund's lack of criminal history and asked for a sentence of probation, or any non[-]prison sentence. The district court noted, This is not a case where ... Rund and the others got into a business and it started going bad and [they] started robbing Peter to pay Paul. There was a larceny in their hearts to begin with, and I still believe that deterrence is crucially important. The district court then sentenced Rund to 18 months imprisonment, three years supervised release, and joint and several restitution in the amount of $1,740,073.51. The district court recognized Rund's poor health and recommended Rund be incarcerated in an institution where they have medical facilities sufficient to treat his illnesses which [the court] consider[ed] quite serious. The district court considered the relevant factors and provided a reasoned basis for its sentence. See Robinson, 516 F.3d at 718. The district court committed no procedural error, and certainly no plain error.