United States v. Lanning
633 F.3d 469
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lanning and Calderon conspired to steal and alter checks from mail and use them to buy items for returns for cash.
- They stole approximately $15,000 through this scheme.
- Both defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to steal mail, possess stolen mail, and utter forged securities.
- The district court sentenced each to 42 months and ordered restitution of $15,286.92, after upward variances from the Guidelines.
- Lanning’s offense level and criminal-history category yielded a Guideline range of 18–24 months; Calderon’s yielded 15–21 months, with upward variances to 42 months each.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, addressing procedural and substantive reasonableness under Gall and related binding precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the upward variance was substantively reasonable | Lanning argues variance based on criminal history was inconsistent | Lanning contends variance improperly anchored to history despite 4A1.3 departure denial | Variance supported by §3553(a) factors; not abuse of discretion |
| Whether allocution rights were properly afforded | Lanning asserts denial of last-word allocution | Court adequately allowed allocution and questions, denied last-readdressing | Allocution satisfied; no denial of rights |
| Whether Calderon’s sentence double-counted criminal history | Calderon claims double counting in departure and variance | Court relied on broader §3553(a) factors beyond history | No error; court considered broader §3553(a) factors beyond history |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors | Lanning/Calderon challenge weight given to criminal history | Court balanced deterrence, protection, rehabilitation, and history | No abuse of discretion; deference given to district court’s balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review; reasonableness standard for sentences outside guidelines)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (court may provide concise explanations; discretion in sentencing decisions)
- Presley, 547 F.3d 625 (2008) (procedural sufficiency; factor-based explanations required)
- Penson, 526 F.3d 331 (2008) (preservation and plain-error review for unpreserved arguments)
- Solis-Bermudez, 501 F.3d 882 (2007) (upward departure vs. upward variance; different bases for §4A1.3(a) vs. §3553(a))
- Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (2009) (courts may consider §3553(a) factors beyond criminal history for departures/variances)