United States v. Heather Servantez, No. 06-3330 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. District court properly considered relevant factors, including criminal history and role in conspiracy and did not err in sentencing defendant at top of Guidelines range. Sentence is not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3330 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Heather Servantez, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: August 10, 2007 Filed: August 23, 2007 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Heather Servantez appeals the 126-month prison terms the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to two drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. For reversal, she argues that her sentence is unreasonable and the district court committed a clear error of judgment by sentencing her at the top of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, because the court gave undue weight to her criminal history without taking into account the petty nature of most of the offenses. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. When the applicable Guidelines range is undisputed, as it is here, we consider whether the sentence is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005). The presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines range, see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007), may be rebutted by showing that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise committed a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only relevant factors, including Servantez s extensive criminal history and her role in the conspiracy, and did not commit a clear error of judgment in choosing a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. 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.
