United States v. Thomas Green, No. 08-1740 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1740 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Thomas A. Green, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 10, 2008 Filed: May 5, 2009 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas A. Green was charged in a one-count indictment with conspiracy to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314, and pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. Green's advisory Guidelines sentencing range was thirty to thirty-seven months' imprisonment, but the District Court,1 after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, varied upward and imposed a fifty-month sentence. Green appeals his sentence, arguing that the court abused its discretion by 1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. varying upward based on a mistaken belief that Green failed to fully cooperate with an investigation of his co-conspirators. Because Green does not challenge the District Court's calculation of his advisory Guidelines sentence, our only role is to review the substantive reasonableness of Green's sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007) (holding that "courts of appeals must review all sentences whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard"). The District Court considered the § 3553(a) factors, observing that Green caused his employer to suffer a substantial loss of money and goodwill, falsely accused his co-workers of committing his crimes in an effort to avoid discovery, and repeatedly attempted to protect his co-conspirators. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of Green's offenses, promoted respect for the law, and provided adequate punishment and deterrence. Moreover, it is clear from our review of the sentencing record that the court did not, as Green contends, focus on Green's failure to cooperate with investigators to the exclusion of other relevant factors. Giving the District Court's determination the considerable deference it is due, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Green's 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.
