United States v. Maxwell
664 F.3d 240
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Maxwell and Smith, Red Lake tribal members, pled guilty to second-degree murder on the Red Lake Reservation; Smith earned a 97–121 guideline range due to cooperation and received 121 months after a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea and a downward departure, Maxwell received 168–210 guideline range and a 222-month sentence after an upward variance; district court treated Smith more leniently due to cooperation and Smith's mental health/duress claims; Maxwell was sentenced first with emphasis on brutality and uncounted tribal violations; both defendants appealed their sentences; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether upward variance for Maxwell but not for Smith was appropriate | Maxwell argues unwarranted disparity | Smith argues equal treatment due to similar conduct | No procedural error; valid reasons supported variance disparity |
| Whether court erred by not downwardly departing for Maxwell’s mental illness | Maxwell asserts need for downward adjustment | Court considered but did not reduce further | Court did not abuse discretion; mental illness declined further reduction |
| Procedural and substantive consideration of Smith’s duress and §3553(a) factors | Smith contends court failed to apply §3553(a) and consider duress | Court considered factors; explicit §5K2.12 reference not required for plain error | No plain error; sentence within §3553(a) factors was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (institutional review of sentencing procedures; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (establishes standard for reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. O'Connor, 567 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural error analysis in sentencing; abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (distinctive factors justify sentencing disparities between codefendants)
- United States v. Maurstad, 454 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2006) (explicit consideration of departures; Maurstad distinguished)
- United States v. Mireles, 617 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard; prejudice requirement for relief)
- United States v. Utlaut, 497 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2007) (departure/consideration standards for downward requests)
- United States v. Clay, 622 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2010) (§3553(a) factors and abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (courtwide latitude in weighing §3553(a) factors)