United States v. Lente
759 F.3d 1149
10th Cir.2014Background
- Drunk-driving crash on Isleta Pueblo killed three people and seriously injured another; Lente pled guilty to three counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of assault; District Court varied upward from a 46–57 month range to 216 months; Sentencing factors cited included extreme recklessness, underrepresented criminal history, and post-conviction conduct; Previous appeals vacated and remanded for reevaluation; District Court ultimately imposed 192 months and detailed factors supporting variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in variance for multiple deaths | Lente asserts the variance relied on happenstance of multiple deaths | District Court found multiple deaths warranted greater reflection of harm and policy disagreement with Guidelines | Variance based on multiple deaths permissible as substantial factor |
| Whether extreme recklessness justified substantial variance | Lente argues recklessness evidence was insufficient to justify large variance | Court found BAC, lack of license, and road choice show extreme recklessness | Yes; extreme recklessness supported substantial variance |
| Whether underrepresented criminal history supported upward variance | Criminal history underrepresented due to tribal court convictions | Guidelines allow upward variance for underrepresented history | Yes; underrepresented history supported variance |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (policy disagreement can justify a non-Guidelines sentence)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (deference to policy disagreements in certain cases; heartland concept)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (adequate explanation required; not a mere formality)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reasonableness review of variance; deference to district court)
- Jones, 332 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2003) (BAC and recklessness considered in assessing recklessness)
- Wolfe, 435 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2006) (discussed interaction of multiple deaths with guideline calculation; remand context)
- Fight, 625 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance for three deaths supported by lack of adequate reflection in guidelines)
- Rosales-Garcia, 667 F.3d 1348 (10th Cir. 2012) (avoidance of unwarranted disparities; happenstance concerns acknowledged)
- Pettigrew, 468 F.3d 626 (10th Cir. 2006) (extreme recklessness and BAC considerations in variance/departure)
- United States v. Conlan, 500 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2007) (framework for 3553(a) factor consideration)