Court Opinion

ID: 9407825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 15:01:39.709428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.369811
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2778
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                 Tammy Longie, also known as Tammy Onebear

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of North Dakota - Eastern
                                  ____________

                              Submitted: July 5, 2023
                               Filed: July 10, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Tammy Longie appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after she
pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and child abuse offenses. In sentencing

      1
       The Honorable Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of North Dakota.
Longie, the district court imposed an upward departure based on physical injury,
extreme psychological injury, and extreme conduct, thus establishing a Guidelines
range of 360 months to life in prison. See U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.2, 5K2.3, and 5K2.8. The
court imposed a life sentence, which it indicated it would have imposed irrespective
of the advisory Guidelines range.

       Upon careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in imposing the upward
departure on the bases identified by the district court. See United States v. Vasquez,
552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We also reject Longie’s
suggestion that the district court failed to adequately explain its sentencing decision.
See United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654, 656-57 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing
claim that district court failed to explain sentencing decision for plain error when not
objected to below). Finally, we conclude that the sentence was not substantively
unreasonable, as the court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th
Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
                         ______________________________

                                          -2-