United States v. Michael Gossitt, Jr., No. 13-2688 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2688 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael Ricardo Gossitt, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: December 16, 2013 Filed: January 24, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Gossitt, Jr., appeals the within-Guidelines-range, eighteen-month sentence imposed by the district court1 after Gossitt admitted violating the conditions 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. of his supervised release by becoming intoxicated and assaulting his girlfriend. We affirm. After admitting his violations at the revocation hearing, Gossitt asked the district court to impose a sentence below the advisory guidelines range of 18-24 months, arguing his violations were the result of mental health and substance abuse problems. Before imposing sentence, the district court acknowledged Gossitt's mental health and alcohol abuse issues, but chose not to vary below the recommended advisory guidelines range. Gossitt claims the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to address his alcohol abuse and mental health issues, and instead focusing on his new violations of the law. Reviewing the substantive reasonableness of Gossitt's sentence for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Jasper, 338 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2003), we find no abuse of discretion. Our review of the record indicates the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and chose to impose a within-guidelines sentence, which we conclude is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Never Misses a Shot, 715 F.3d 1048, 1054 (8th Cir. 2013). There was no abuse of discretion simply because the district court gave less weight to Gossitt's alcohol abuse and mental health issues than Gossitt would have liked. See United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) ("The district court had wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors . . . and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence."). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
