Opinion ID: 620275
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forde's Sentence

Text: The district court calculated Forde's advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) range to be 262 to 327 months imprisonment (total offense level of 34 and criminal history category of VI). After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and specifically recognizing the drug quantities involved in Forde's offenses, the length of time, and the fact that [Forde] is a recidivist, the district court imposed a 327-month sentence. Forde claims her sentence is unreasonable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 749 (8th Cir.2008) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors. Id. (quoting United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). [I]t will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentencewhether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines rangeas substantively unreasonable. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 1090 (D.C.Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Forde's primary argument is that the district court improperly weighed certain factors in determining her sentence. Forde contends [t]he district court did not truly consider her claim that her relationship with an abusive boyfriend turned her into a drug dealer. But a review of the sentencing transcript shows the district court expressly considered and rejected Forde's claim. This analysis was well within the district court's discretion. We also reject Forde's assertion it was improper, when imposing Forde's sentence, for the district court to consider the government's decision not to file an information to establish prior convictionswhich the district court observed would have qualified Forde for a mandatory life sentence. See United States v. Alvarado, 615 F.3d 916, 925 (8th Cir.2010) ([T]he district court did not consider an inappropriate or irrelevant factor by considering the benefit [the defendant] received from the government's charging decision.). The remainder of Forde's arguments are without merit. Because Forde's sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range it receives a presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Luleff, 574 F.3d 566, 569 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862, 869 (8th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Forde has not rebutted that presumption, and we affirm her sentence.