United States v. Dace
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22505
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Dace pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture over 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession of pseudoephedrine for meth production, under a written plea agreement.
- The district court sentenced Dace to 105 months and four years of supervised release, below the advisory Guidelines range of 121–151 months.
- PSR set base offense level 32, total offense level 29, criminal history category IV, yielding a 121–151 month range.
- Dace objected that his criminal history was overstated and urged a downward variance based on drug quantity and his personal history.
- The district court declined to find overstated criminal history, but varied downward for Dace’s impoverished childhood and substance abuse background.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by not adequately explaining downward departure for criminal-history overstated. | Dace argued for clearer explanation of why his criminal history was overstated. | The government contends district court adequately addressed arguments and had discretion. | No plain error; court adequately considered and rejected Dace's arguments. |
| Whether the district court erred by failing to address the drug-quantity argument and addiction-based variance. | Dace claimed the court did not respond to drug-quantity and variance arguments. | Court may decide whether to respond; relied on Guidelines reasoning. | Court did not err; it explicitly considered the addiction-related variance and imposed a proper sentence. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable under §3553(a) factors given the court’s treatment of Dace’s history and characteristics. | Dace contends the court did not individually weigh minor history, addiction, and family circumstances. | Court weighed factors against the offense and did not abuse discretion by differing from Dace’s view. | No abuse of discretion; district court weighed factors and reasonably explained its chosen variance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural and substantive review of sentencing decisions)
- Bryant v. United States, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing factual findings and guideline application)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (consideration of 3553(a) factors and departure/variance arguments)
- Bridges v. United States, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (emphasizes district court discretion in sentencing factors)
- Townsend v. United States, 618 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)