United States v. Lente
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15647
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lente intoxicated (BAL 0.21) drove on Isleta Indian Reservation, crossing center line and causing a head-on crash that killed three and seriously injured one.
- She pled guilty to three counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
- Initial district court sentence was 216 months, an upward variance from a 46–57 month Guidelines range.
- Remand occurred after a divided Tenth Circuit panel vacated the sentence; resentencing given by a different judge resulted in 192 months.
- On appeal, Lente challenged the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable; the panel found reversible procedural error and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred procedurally by failing to address § 3553(a)(6) disparity | Lente argued failure to address disparities violated § 3553(a)(6) | Lente contended court ignored data and comparable cases | Procedural error; remand required |
| Whether the district court erred by not addressing mitigating circumstances surrounding recklessness | Lente asserted pre-crash circumstances mitigated recklessness | Government contended aggravation justified sentence | Procedural error; remand required |
| Whether the district court erred in relying on SR 47 as a basis for recklessness without proper notice | Lente claimed lack of notice and hearing on SR 47 findings | Court may consider general road characteristics; notice issue harmless | Procedural error with potential impact; remand required; harmless in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural sentencing errors require proper explanation and consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- Pinson, 542 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2008) (court must address material § 3553(a) arguments on the record)
- Martinez-Barragan, 545 F.3d 894 (10th Cir. 2008) (within-Guidelines sentences must still consider § 3553(a) factors; explain reasoning when outside range)
- Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2010) (court must consider disparities; failure to address can be procedural error in outside-range sentences)
- Cerno, 529 F.3d 926 (3d Cir. 2008) (procedural error must be shown to permit meaningful appellate review of sentence)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (explain reasoning and consider arguments when departing from guidelines)
- Wolfe, 435 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2006) (comparative cases used to assess disparities in sentencing)
- Jones, 332 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2003) (comparative cases in assessing disparities in sentencing)
- Whiteskunk, 162 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 1998) (reference point for sentencing disparities and upward variance)