United States v. Thomas Riehl
779 F.3d 776
8th Cir.2015Background
- Riehl pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine or 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, §841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846.
- District court calculated a guidelines range of 292–365 months and sentenced to 214 months after a 35% uncontested departure.
- At sentencing, both parties urged a two-level downward variance in anticipation of Amendment 782 to the Guidelines.
- The district court declined to apply Amendment 782 prospectively, noting the amendment’s effect was not guaranteed.
- Riehl appealed asserting (i) the court erred by denying the variance in anticipation of Amendment 782, (ii) weight given to Amendment 782’s policy reasons, and (iii) failure to allow further argument; the court affirmed.
- The opinion discusses whether Amendment 782 applies retroactively and whether § 3582(c)(2) relief could affect Riehl’s sentence, ultimately affirming without remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court required to consider the pending amendment | Riehl argues the court should have applied Amendment 782 | Riehl contends the court should have given weight to Amendment 782 policy | No; court may consider, not required to apply pending amendment |
| Should policy reasons behind Amendment 782 have affected the variance | Riehl seeks consideration of Amendment 782 policy | Court may consider policy but on appeal review is for abuse of discretion | Issue not case-dispositive; sentence remained substantively reasonable |
| Did the district court permit sufficient argument on the variance | Riehl asserts he was denied opportunity to argue | Record shows parties argued and court indicated no further argument needed | Record shows parties argued; no error in allowing argument and not requiring further hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Allebach, 526 F.3d 385 (8th Cir.2008) (consideration of pending guidelines amendment not required)
- United States v. Davis, 276 Fed.Appx. 527 (8th Cir.2008) (proposed amendment need not be considered for sentence)
- United States v. Harris, 74 F.3d 1244 (8th Cir.1996) (courts may apply guidelines in effect; ex post facto considerations)
- United States v. Adams, 509 F.3d 929 (8th Cir.2007) (explanation of applying guidelines at sentencing)
- United States v. Hasan, 245 F.3d 682 (8th Cir.2001) (remains whether resentencing under § 3582(c)(2) is required; not guaranteed)