United States v. Kevin Heim, 941 F.3d 338

Defendant Kevin Heim pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, with counts implicating both a methamphetamine mixture and “actual/ice” methamphetamine.
The district court applied USSG §2D1.1(c)(2) and Note (C) treating the offense as involving between 1.5 and 4.5 kg of actual (ice) meth, yielding a base offense level 36 and a guidelines range of 262–327 months.
Heim asked for a downward variance, arguing the court should apply the methamphetamine-mixture guideline (base level 32) as several judges in the Northern District of Iowa have done (citing Harry and Nawanna).
The district court declined to vary on that policy ground, explaining (i) it does not vary merely on a personal policy disagreement with the Guidelines, (ii) there is a rational basis for treating actual meth more seriously, and (iii) one district judge’s sentencing practices are not binding or a proper reference point, citing Eighth Circuit precedent; the court nevertheless granted a downward departure and imposed 170 months.
On appeal Heim argued procedural error for failing to consider unwarranted sentencing disparities with other judges who have varied. The Eighth Circuit treated this as a substantive-reasonableness challenge, reviewed for abuse of discretion, and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court committed procedural error by refusing to vary from the Guidelines based on sentencing disparities with other district judges who disagree as a matter of policy	Heim: Court failed to consider unwarranted disparities created by other ND Iowa judges who vary from the ice-meth guideline	Government/District Court: Court properly considered and rejected a policy-based variance; other judges' practices are not a principled baseline under §3553(a)(6)	Affirmed. No procedural error; refusal to vary on policy grounds is permissible and appellate court will not force district judges to adopt other judges’ policy-based variances

Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009) (district courts may categorically vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreement)
United States v. Bollinger, 893 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2018) (one district court’s sentencing practices are not a reference point for other courts)
United States v. Soliz, 857 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2017) (similar holding about reliance on other judges’ sentences)
United States v. Velazquez, [citation="726 F. App'x 530"] (8th Cir. 2018) (correct calculation and review of Guidelines necessarily addresses disparities concern)
United States v. McElderry, 875 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2017) (rejecting claim that disparities with multiple judges requires appellate correction)
United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court may but is not required to deviate on policy grounds)
United States v. Fry, 792 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2015) (there is no principled basis for an appellate court to pick which of several judges’ sentences is correct)