United States v. Donnietha Bradford, No. 07-3183 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. District court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 46 months imprisonment for conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud to be served consecutively to an undischarged prison term for an unrelated state conviction. Record reflects the court gave proper considerations to the relevant factors.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3183 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Donnietha Bradford, also known as * Eastern District of Arkansas. Donnie Bradford, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: February 13, 2009 Filed: February 23, 2009 ___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Donnietha Bradford (Bradford) pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court1 sentenced Bradford to the top of the advisory Guidelines range, 46 months in prison, to be served consecutively to an undischarged prison term for an unrelated state conviction. 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Bradford now argues in her counseled brief2 the sentence is unreasonable because the court failed to consider relevant factors by giving no significance to the victim s intelligence, education, and business background, and giving considerable weight to an incorrect assessment of Bradford s own educational achievements. We reject these arguments. The record reflects the court gave proper consideration to these and other relevant factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see also United States v. Fields, 512 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2008), and we find no abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (stating the appellate standard of review for a sentence); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007) (approving the appellate presumption of reasonableness for a within-Guidelines-range sentence); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining the circumstances constituting an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 2 We decline to consider Bradford s pro se brief, see United States v. Clark, 409 F.3d 1039, 1041 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005), and we deny her pending motion for appointment of new counsel. -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.
