United States v. Curtis Rhine
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6477
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rhine pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and felon in possession of a firearm.
- District court sentenced Rhine to 180 months, upholding a non-Guidelines sentence after considering his Fish Bowl involvement.
- Probation officer initially treated Fish Bowl activity as relevant conduct, increasing offense level and guideline range; Rhine I reversed that approach.
- On remand, the court calculated a 30–37 month guideline range, but imposed consecutive 120 and 60 month terms totaling 180 months.
- Judge Rhine stated the sentence reflected Rhine’s history and Fish Bowl conduct and could be viewed as a variance from the guidelines.
- Appeal challenged both procedural sufficiency of the justification and substantive reasonableness; the court affirmed the sentence as reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of non-Guidelines sentence | Rhine | Rhine | Sentence properly explained and reasonable |
| Consideration of Fish Bowl conduct under §3553(a) | Rhine I limited admissible conduct | Court may consider history and characteristics | Fish Bowl history properly considered under §3553(a) |
| Substantive reasonableness of 180-month total | Sentence reflects seriousness and deterrence | Sentence is excessive without proper explanation | No abuse of discretion; sentence substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (two-step reasonableness review; procedural and substantive components)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (requirement to explain outside-Guidelines sentences with factual basis)
- Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (precedent for reasonable-review framework post-Booker)
- Bonilla v. United States, 524 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2008) (adequacy of articulation for variance; minimally sufficient reasons)
- Mares v. United States, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (requirement for fact-specific reasons when variance is used)
- Gutierrez-Hernandez v. United States, 581 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2009) (procedural review framework and §3553(a) factors)
- Rhine I, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009) (Fish Bowl conduct not part of offense; informs law-of-the-case on departures)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (explanation of insufficient reasoning for variance; individualized assessment)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (S. Ct. 2011) (limits on departure reasoning and reliability of rationale)
- United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2008) (insufficient variance explanation; requirement for reasoned justification)
- Carter v. United States, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (need for individualized rationale when variance departs from guidelines)