United States v. Yazzie, 704 F. App'x 767

Defendant Matthew Yazzie drove drunk and caused a head-on collision on a Native American reservation, seriously injuring a mother and two of her children; he pled guilty to three counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country.
The district court used U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 (aggravated assault) to calculate offense level 21, and Yazzie’s criminal history category V produced a guidelines range of 70–87 months.
Yazzie argued at sentencing for a below-guideline 37-month sentence, claiming § 2A2.2 yields disproportionate sentences when applied to reckless conduct; the court imposed 78 months (mid-range) concurrent on each count.
On appeal Yazzie challenged the substantive reasonableness of his within-guidelines sentence and argued § 2A2.2 is inapplicable or disproportionate for reckless (not intentional) assaults.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the guidelines question de novo and substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion, applying the rebuttable presumption that a within-guideline sentence is reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yazzie’s within-guideline 78-month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Yazzie: sentence is disproportionate and unreasonable under § 3553(a) because § 2A2.2 produces excessive punishment for reckless serious-injury assaults	Government/District Court: sentence is within properly calculated guidelines and thus presumptively reasonable; district court considered § 3553(a) factors	Affirmed — court applied the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for within-guideline sentences and found no abuse of discretion in denying a below-guideline sentence
Whether U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 improperly treats reckless serious-injury assaults more harshly than reckless killings or was intended only for intentional assaults	Yazzie: § 2A2.2 was meant for intentional assaults and yields harsher punishment for reckless serious injury than for reckless involuntary manslaughter	Court/Government: Guidelines and statutory scheme show Congress and the Sentencing Commission based § 2A2.2 on statutory offense categories and maximums, and involuntary manslaughter guideline is not lower; no evidence Commission limited § 2A2.2 to intentional mens rea	Held — § 2A2.2 can apply to reckless § 113(a)(6) convictions; the guideline does not produce improper disproportionality here

United States v. Craig, 808 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.) (explains substantive-reasonableness review under § 3553(a))
United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir.) (establishes rebuttable presumption that within-guideline sentences are reasonable)
United States v. Wireman, 849 F.3d 956 (10th Cir.) (applies presumption even where guideline may lack empirical basis)
United States v. Tindall, 519 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir.) (discusses offense-level calculation under § 2A2.2 for serious bodily injury)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (explains that guidelines are advisory and courts may consider § 3553(a) factors beyond the range)
United States v. Herula, 464 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir.) (reviews legal questions about guideline application de novo)
United States v. DeRusse, 859 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir.) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Pettigrew, 468 F.3d 626 (10th Cir.) (upheld upward departure for excessively reckless drunk-driving conduct)