United States v. Stacy Lisenbery
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14653
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Stacy Lisenbery pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (one-count information), statutory max 20 years, no mandatory minimum.
- Arrested at a parcel facility after attempting to pick up a package containing ~2.2 lbs of methamphetamine; admitted to distributing larger quantities previously.
- PSR base offense level 38, reduced to 35 for acceptance; Guideline range at level 35, CHC IV: 235–240 months.
- Government filed a §5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance; court reduced offense level by 5 to level 30, Guideline range 135–168 months.
- District court imposed an upward variance to 180 months after weighing §3553(a) factors (quantity, profit, criminal history, addiction, cooperation).
- Lisenbery appealed, arguing the sentence is substantively unreasonable due to court consideration of improper facts and insufficient weight to mitigation/created disparity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court relied on improper/unproven PSR allegations (paras 12, 60) | Court discussed and thus relied on allegations despite objections | Court acknowledged mistake and explicitly stated it would not consider those allegations | No abuse of discretion; court did not consider those disputed facts |
| Whether district court clearly erred in weighing mitigating factors (cooperation, addiction) | Lisenbery: court gave insufficient weight to early cooperation and addiction | Court credited cooperation and addiction but found large scope of crime and recidivism outweighed them | No abuse; court reasonably weighed §3553(a) factors |
| Whether sentence created unwarranted disparity with similarly situated defendants | Lisenbery contends his 5-level §5K1.1 reduction was not sufficiently accounted for relative to others | Court considered cooperation and declined to reduce further given quantity/resume of offenses | No error shown; sentencing court considered disparities and assigned weight reasonably |
| Whether overall 180-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Lisenbery: upward variance excessive given mitigation and cooperation | Government: variance justified by large drug quantity, profit, and criminal history | Affirmed: deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robison, 759 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness; abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Gall v. United States, 522 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing review and deferential abuse-of-discretion standard)
- United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2009) (examples of district court abusing sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Roberts, 747 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts have wide latitude in weighing §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court discretion in factor weightings)
- United States v. Sandoval-Sianuqui, 632 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2011) (procedural error occurs if court fails to consider §3553(a) factors, including disparity)