United States v. Roger Dengler
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20438
8th Cir.2012Background
- Dengler, a USPS employee for over 30 years, used his Davenport, Iowa home to store drugs as part of a marijuana and cocaine conspiracy.
- He was indicted for conspiring to distribute large quantities of marijuana and cocaine but pled guilty to a lesser charge under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) (maintaining drug-involved premises).
- The district court sentenced Dengler to 78 months, the bottom of the guidelines range, after applying § 2D1.8(a)(1) base level 30 and granting a two-level acceptance of responsibility reduction; Dengler had a Category I criminal history.
- Dengler argued for § 2D1.8(a)(2), which would give a four-level reduction by showing he had no participation beyond allowing use of the premises, claiming substantial involvement in the conspiracy.
- Three witnesses testified to Dengler’s substantial involvement: cocaine sales, storage of drugs at Dengler’s home, and Dengler’s distribution of drugs to customers.
- The court denied the § 2D1.8(a)(2) reduction, declined to grant safety-valve relief under § 5C1.2, and Dengler challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable; on appeal the court affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for § 2D1.8(a)(1) vs (a)(2) applicability | Dengler contends government bears burden. | Dengler contends burden maybe on government or defense; court need not decide. | District court not required to decide burden; evidence showed Dengler’s substantial involvement making § 2D1.8(a)(2) inapplicable. |
| Eligibility for safety valve § 5C1.2(a)(5) | Dengler could meet requirements and should receive safety-valve reduction. | Dengler failed to show truthful disclosure or cooperation; government did not solicit information. | No plain error; Dengler did not show truthful disclosure or cooperation to trigger § 5C1.2(a)(5). |
| Substantive reasonableness of 78-month sentence | Sentence was too harsh given limited duration and lack of harm. | Court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and Dengler’s substantial participation. | Sentence within guideline range; presumptively reasonable; no abuse of discretion. |
| Plain-error review for sentencing-raising at trial | Issue not raised at sentencing; review should be plain error. | Court applied plain-error review; no reversible error established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leasure, 319 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (burden allocation for § 2D1.8(a)(1) vs (a)(2))
- Dickerson, 195 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 1999) (burden on defendant for § 2D1.8(a)(1) vs (a)(2))
- Rios, 171 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 1999) (plain error review when not raised at sentencing)
- Romo, 81 F.3d 84 (8th Cir. 1996) (truthful disclosure obligation for safety valve)
- Mejia, 91 F.3d 148 (8th Cir. 1996) (initiation of government contact to discuss offense)
- Garcia, 675 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2012) (safety valve requirements, including fifth element)
- Robinson, 516 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2008) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonable under § 3553(a) framework)