On appeal from The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ">

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-18-2021

Case Style:

United States of America v. Lennie Brooks

Case Number: 19-3687

Judge: Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges

Court: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
On appeal from The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:


St. Louis, MO - Best Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


Description:

St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with three counts of robbery.



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).

Outcome: We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: