United States v. James Patterson, No. 06-1576 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case -Sentencing. District court may enhance sentence based on judge-found facts if the court views the guidelines as advisory; sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1576 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. James Patterson, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 22, 2006 Filed: December 28, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James Patterson pleaded guilty to possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). The district court1 calculated an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 10-16 months, and sentenced Patterson to 12 months and one day in prison and three years of supervised release. On appeal Patterson argues, citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by enhancing the applicable Guidelines range based on his possession of three stolen firearms, see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. We reject Patterson s argument, see United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2005) (after Booker, district court may enhance sentence based on judgefound facts if court views Guidelines as advisory), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1399 (2006); and further conclude that Patterson s sentence was not unreasonable, see Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-62 (appellate courts must review sentences for unreasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
