Court Opinion

ID: 9948993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 16:01:35.243298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:33.309487
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2498
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                                  William Long

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: February 12, 2024
                             Filed: March 8, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________

PER CURIAM.

       The district court 1 sentenced William Long to 120 months in prison after he
pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C). He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
       We conclude otherwise. See United States v. Harris, 960 F.3d 1103, 1106
(8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion). The record establishes that
the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error in
judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc). It discussed several mitigating factors, including Long’s family history,
mental-health issues, and acceptance of responsibility, and varied downward from
the recommended range. Just because Long hoped they would be given more weight
does not mean the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Moua, 895 F.3d
556, 560 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam); see also United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d
1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that it is “nearly inconceivable” that a district
court abused its discretion by refusing to vary downward even further (citation
omitted)). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
                         ______________________________

                                          -2-