Submitted: September 23, 2019
Appeal
from United States District Court for the Northern District
of Iowa - Ft. Dodge
Before
SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
SMITH,
CHIEF JUDGE.
Spencer
Fitzpatrick pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine after having been previously
convicted of a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), 846, and 851. The
district court[1] sentenced Fitzpatrick to 223 months'
imprisonment. Fitzpatrick challenges the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence. He argues the district court
erred in denying his request for a downward variance by
failing to properly consider his difficult upbringing. We
disagree and affirm.
I.
Background
Fitzpatrick
and another individual sold 26.6 grams of methamphetamine to
a confidential informant in a motel room. After the sale, law
enforcement officers entered the motel room, arrested
Fitzpatrick and the other person, and seized another 26.22
grams of methamphetamine.
Prior
to sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence
investigation report (PSR) that described Fitzpatrick's
criminal and personal history. The PSR set Fitzpatrick's
base offense level at 30, see U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(c)(5), and assigned him a category VI criminal history
based on his 28 criminal history points. In addition, the
probation office recommended application of the career
offender enhancement due to Fitzpatrick's three prior
convictions for controlled substance offenses. See
U.S.S.G § 4B1.1(b)(1). The career offender enhancement
increased Fitzpatrick's offense level to 37, and after
adjustments for acceptance of responsibility, his total
offense level decreased to 34. Fizpatrick's offense level
of 34 and category VI criminal history yielded an advisory
Guidelines range of 262 months to 327 months'
imprisonment.
At
sentencing, Fitzpatrick requested a downward variance from
the advisory Guidelines range based on his difficult
upbringing. Fitzpatrick explained that his mother and
adoptive father verbally and physically abused him in his
early childhood. His mother left him at the age of 6, and his
adoptive father continued to abuse him until the age of 12
when he entered state custody. Over the next four years, the
State of Iowa placed him in 17 group home facilities. At age
16, Fitzpatrick located his biological father in Arizona and
began living with him. At the time, Fitzpatrick's father
abused alcohol, heroin, and cocaine.
After
considering Fitzpatrick's argument, the district court
denied his request for a downward variance. The district
court expressly considered Fitzpatrick's difficult
upbringing, but, given Fitzpatrick's age, 42, refused to
attribute his extensive criminal history solely to his harsh
rearing experiences. The district court explained that
Fitzpatrick's recent criminal history outweighed his
mistreatment. It specifically noted that Fitzpatrick
immediately resumed dealing methamphetamine after his release
from state prison. He had served less than 2 years of a
15-year prison sentence. The district court also noted he had
recently fired a gun into an occupied residence containing
five adults and six children. The district court did take
Fitzpatrick's difficult upbringing into account along
with the other sentencing factors that must be considered
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court applied an
agreed-upon downward departure using the bottom of the
advisory Guidelines range of 262 months' imprisonment as
the starting point. Fitzpatrick was sentenced to 223
months' imprisonment.[2]
II.
Discussion
When
reviewing Fitzpatrick's challenge to the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence, we review the district
court's sentence for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc).
An abuse of discretion occurs when: (1) a court fails to
consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight; (2) a court gives significant weight to
an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) a court considers
only the appropriate factors but in weighing them commits a
clear error of judgment.
United States v. Williams, 624 F.3d 889, 899 (8th
Cir. 2010). In our review of the sentence, "we are to
'take into account the totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines
range.'" Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (quoting
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). If
Fitzpatrick's sentence falls within the Guidelines range,
"then we 'may, but [are] not required to, apply a
presumption of ...