United States v. Johnny Orsinger, 698 F. App'x 527

Johnny Orsinger, convicted of four murders as a juvenile, received life sentences and sought vacatur and resentencing on appeal.
He argued his life sentences violate Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana because he is not permanently incorrigible.
The district court conducted a resentencing and found Orsinger among the "uncommon" juvenile offenders for whom life without parole is permissible, considering factors from Miller and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The court expressly considered the heinousness of the offenses and evidence of Orsinger's rehabilitation while incarcerated.
On appeal, Orsinger challenged the court’s consideration of heinousness and contended the rehabilitation evidence showed he was not incorrigible; the government did not contest that his appeal waiver did not bar the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court failed to properly evaluate incorrigibility under Miller/Montgomery	Orsinger: court did not properly consider whether he is permanently incorrigible and thus ineligible for life	District court: applied Miller’s framework, found Orsinger among the rare incorrigible offenders after weighing factors	Affirmed — court applied Miller factors and reasonably found Orsinger in the uncommon class
Whether the court erred by relying on the heinousness of the crime	Orsinger: reliance on heinousness was improper or excessive	Government/district court: Miller permits consideration of offense severity to distinguish transient immaturity from irreparable corruption	Affirmed — considering heinousness was permissible and expected under Miller
Whether evidence of rehabilitation makes a life sentence unconstitutional here	Orsinger: prison rehabilitation evidence shows he is not incorrigible	District court: considered rehabilitation but found countervailing evidence stronger; at least two permissible views exist	Affirmed — factfinder’s choice between competing evidence was not clearly erroneous

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional and requiring individualized consideration)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (held Miller’s rule applies retroactively and life without parole permitted only for rare permanently incorrigible juveniles)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juvenile sentencing must account for youth-related differences)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate review deference: factfinder’s choice between permissible views is not clearly erroneous)