United States v. Hentges
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5729
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Randy Allen Hentges pleaded guilty to attempting to manufacture methamphetamine near a school in violation of federal drug and conspiracy statutes.
- At sentencing the district court classified Hentges as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1, producing an advisory range of 188–235 months; accepting responsibility lowered his guideline computations but did not change the career-offender designation.
- The district court stated that even if Hentges were not a career offender (advisory range 92–115 months), it would upwardly vary under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) to 188 months because of Hentges’s extensive criminal history and incorrigibility, then reduced the sentence to 132 months on unrelated grounds.
- The court relied on Hentges’s 22 criminal history points, multiple revocations, escapes/absences from custody, prior drug convictions (including possession with intent to deliver at age 21 and precursor chemical possession with intent to manufacture), and commission of the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence.
- Hentges appealed, arguing the career-offender designation was erroneous, the §3553(a) upward variance lacked sufficient justification, and his right of allocution was violated.
Issues
| Issue | Hentges' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hentges qualifies as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1 | Two prior convictions (precursor chemical w/ intent; attempted 3rd‑degree burglary) do not qualify as controlled-substance offenses or crimes of violence | Both priors qualify; alternatively, even without career-offender status the district court’s §3553(a) variance sustains the sentence | Court avoided deciding categorical issue; affirmed based on reasonable §3553(a) upward variance |
| Whether the §3553(a) upward variance was sufficiently justified | District court’s reasons were insufficient to support upward variance to 188 months absent career‑offender status | District court cited extensive criminal history, 22 points, repeated revocations/escapes, and current offense while under supervision as sufficient grounds | District court’s individualized §3553(a) justification was reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether reliance on shorthand "drug dealer since age 21" was erroneous | That shorthand misstated record and prejudiced sentencing | Term reasonably summarized defendant’s multi‑offense drug history and did not affect sentence | No clear error or prejudice from shorthand characterization |
| Whether Hentges was denied right of allocution under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i) and due process | Court announced intention to impose sentence before allowing Hentges to speak, violating allocution rights | Court invited Hentges to speak before imposing sentence; procedure complied with Rule 32(i) and due process | No violation; court’s procedure was acceptable under plain‑error review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sayles, 754 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2014) (supports using extensive criminal history to justify variance)
- United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court discretion to vary based on criminal-history facts)
- United States v. Hoffman, 707 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2013) (plain‑error review where defendant failed to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Boose, 403 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2005) (inviting defendant to speak before imposing sentence satisfies Rule 32(i))
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits use of categorical/modified‑categorical approaches when determining qualifying prior offenses)