United States v. Lewis
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22604
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- Defendant Victor L. Lewis was charged by indictment in 2006 with conspiracy to distribute over 50 grams of crack, two counts of distributing over 5 grams of crack, and possession with intent to distribute crack.
- Lewis was arrested in 2006, released on bond, and later had a pretrial-release violation based on marijuana use and a travel violation in 2007.
- He pled guilty on April 14, 2008, and the case involved crack sentencing guidelines with the 100:1 crack/powder ratio.
- The district court calculated an advisory range based on crack quantities totaling at least 4.5 kilograms, applied a firearm-enhancement, and issued a 168-month sentence after declining a downward variance.
- Lewis argued that the crack/powder disparity warranted a policy-based downward variance under Kimbrough and Spears, seeking a sentence of 120 months, the statutory minimum.
- The court ultimately imposed 168 months’ imprisonment concurrently on four counts, and Lewis timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred procedurally by not applying a policy-based variance | Lewis argues the court should reduce for policy disagreement with crack/powder disparity | Government asserts no mandatory policy to variate; court acted within discretion | No procedural error; court could decline to vary as a matter of policy. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable given 3553(a) factors | Lewis contends the disparity warrants a downward variance to below-guideline range | The court properly weighed 3553(a) factors and reasonably chose within-guidelines sentence | Sentence was substantively reasonable with a within-guidelines range and proper consideration of 3553(a) factors. |
| Whether Kimbrough and Spears authorize a policy-based downward variance in crack/powder cases | Disparity supports a policy-based reduction | Disparity may be considered but is not required for a variance | District court may vary but was not required to do so in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (recognizes district courts may vary from crack guidelines based on policy disagreement with disparity)
- Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009) (clarifies that policy-based variance is permissible, not mandatory)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes standard of reasonableness review for sentences)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (discusses guidelines and variance framework in context of crack/powder disparity)
- United States v. Caldwell, 585 F.3d 1347 (2009) (supports discretionary variance from crack guidelines; recognizes not mandatory to vary)
- United States v. Trotter, 518 F.3d 773 (2008) (discusses discretion to vary from crack guidelines)