United States v. Omy Jamel Larkins, No. 05-4241 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court's refusal to depart downward from an alleged overstated criminal history cannot be reviewed; sentence was not unreasonable and was based on application of the sentencing factors.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-4241 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Omy Jamel Larkins, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 3, 2006 Filed: November 8, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Omy Jamel Larkins (Larkins) pled guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. At sentencing, the district court1 found Larkins was a career offender based in part on two prior drug offenses, and it denied an U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 downward departure, finding Larkins s career-offender status did not significantly overrepresent his criminal history. The court sentenced Larkins to 188 1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Larkins maintains his sentence is unreasonable, arguing his criminal history is overstated and the court failed to consider, and explain its application of, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We reject these arguments. First, the district court s refusal to depart downward from an alleged overstated criminal history cannot be reviewed. See United States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). Second, the court adequately addressed the sentencing factors, particularly Larkins s criminal history, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the instant offense and to protect the public, and potential sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005). Finally, the sentence which was within the applicable Guidelines range is not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005); United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
