United States v. Fight
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23935
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lone Fight pled guilty to three counts of involuntary manslaughter in Indian country; district court sentenced him to 231 months total, consecutive on all counts.
- The fatal collision occurred when Lone Fight, with BAC 0.15%, crossed a highway in a no-passing zone and hit an eastbound vehicle, killing three people.
- PSR recommended an advisory range of 77–96 months by grouping the three counts under USSG § 3D1.2.
- Prior to sentencing, the court sent a letter indicating it might impose consecutive sentences, noting Kreitinger and Lone Fight’s extensive history.
- At sentencing, the government urged concurrent sentences; Lone Fight urged concurrent punishment and highlighted mitigating factors; the court imposed consecutive 77-month terms on each count, totaling 231 months.
- The court applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and affirmed the consecutive sentence as reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were proper under § 5G1.2. | Lone Fight argues § 5G1.2 both calls for and limits concurrency. | Lone Fight contends § 5G1.2 requires concurrency when the highest count’s max is within range. | Consecutive sentences affirmed despite § 5G1.2 not requiring them. |
| Whether § 3584 and § 3553(a) support the court’s decision to run counts consecutively. | Lone Fight asserts the court relied on § 5G1.2 rather than § 3553(a). | Court considered § 3553(a) factors; Letter shows § 3553(a) guided decision. | Court properly used § 3553(a) to justify consecutives under § 3584. |
| Whether Kreitinger influenced the sentence improperly. | Court relied on Kreitinger for guidance on consecutive sentences. | Kreitinger informed analysis but did not dictate § 5G1.2 outcome. | Kreitinger acknowledged but did not control the result; sentence preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500 (8th Cir.2009) (addresses the subject of when consecutive sentences may be warranted; does not discuss § 5G1.2)
- United States v. Jarvis, 606 F.3d 552 (8th Cir.2010) (affirms district court’s discretion under § 3584 to impose consecutives after § 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817 (8th Cir.2010) (discusses § 5G1.2 and § 3584 interplay; confirms court may impose consecutive terms when § 3553(a) factors warrant)
- United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir.2000) (establishes meaning of total punishment under § 5G1.2)