UNITED STATES v. BROOKS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-01-19No. No. 19-3687

Summary · law.co

Holding. The sentence was affirmed as substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

Lennie Brooks pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery under federal law. The district court granted a downward departure from the standard sentencing guidelines but imposed a 365-month prison sentence at the upper end of the adjusted range (292–365 months). Brooks challenged the sentence as unreasonably harsh, pointing to his difficult upbringing and cooperation with authorities. The appellate court rejected this challenge, finding the sentence substantively reasonable because the district court properly weighed the statutory sentencing factors, including the serious nature of the offenses—notably that a 63-year-old victim suffered a fatal heart attack during one robbery. Although Brooks presented mitigating circumstances, disagreement over how heavily the trial judge weighted those factors does not warrant reversal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Substantive reasonableness of a sentence within the adjusted Guidelines range
Consideration of statutory sentencing factors, including offense severity and victim impact
Weight accorded to mitigating circumstances and lack of appellate basis to reverse on that ground alone

Procedural posture

Brooks appealed his 365-month sentence after pleading guilty to three counts of robbery and receiving a downward departure from the standard guidelines range.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Lennie Brooks pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951. After granting a downward departure, the district court

sentenced him to 365 months in prison, at the top of the recommended post-departure Guidelines range of 292 to 365 months. Although he argues that his sentence is unreasonably long, we affirm.

We conclude that the sentence was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Washington, 893 F.3d 1076, 1080 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable). The district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the fact that a 63-year-old man had a heart attack during one of the robberies and died, see id. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A) (stating that the district court “shall consider ․ the nature and circumstances” and “seriousness of the offense”).

To be sure, Brooks presented several mitigating circumstances, pointing specifically to his difficult childhood and eventual decision to cooperate and take responsibility for his crimes. But there is no reason to believe that the district court did not consider them, particularly after they were addressed at length in the sentencing memoranda and at the hearing. See United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 2012) (presuming that district courts consider the mitigating factors discussed in the filings and at the hearing). In the end, his argument really comes down to a disagreement with how much weight it placed on these factors, which “alone does not justify reversal.” United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); see also United States v. Nguyen, 829 F.3d 907, 926 (8th Cir. 2016) (acknowledging the “wide latitude” that district courts have to weigh the statutory sentencing factors).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.