UNITED STATES v. LASSEN III (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-03-29No. No. 20-1266

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's within-Guidelines sentence of 262 months was reasonable, and the sentence is affirmed.

Cody Michael Lassen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received a sentence of 262 months in prison—the minimum of the applicable Guidelines range. The district court determined Lassen qualified as a career offender based on his extensive criminal history, which alone carried 22 points and placed him in criminal history category VI. Lassen challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable, contending the court improperly evaluated the statutory sentencing factors and should have granted his request for a downward departure.

The appellate court reviewed the sentence for abuse of discretion and found none. The district court had thoroughly examined Lassen's extensive juvenile and adult criminal record, noted that he distributed methamphetamine while on parole just weeks after release from prison, and also considered mitigating factors including his young age at the onset of drug use and mental health history. The court determined that the district court did not overlook any relevant sentencing factor or commit clear error in weighing them, and that disagreement with how the court balanced those factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively unreasonable
Proper consideration and weighing of statutory sentencing factors
Career offender status and criminal history calculation
Standard of review for sentencing reasonableness

Procedural posture

Lassen appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in the district court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Cody Michael Lassen appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The district court

found that he was a career offender and adopted the presentence investigation report which recommended a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. Lassens status as a career offender made no impact because his criminal history carried 22 points on its own. The district court imposed a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 262 months in prison. Lassen appeals, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court improperly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and should have granted his request to vary downward.

We review the reasonableness of a district courts sentence for an abuse of discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We are allowed, but not required, to presume a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586); see also United States v. Nelson, 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020).

We conclude that the district court did not overlook a relevant sentencing factor in § 3553(a) or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Boyd, 956 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2020). The district court thoroughly reviewed Lassens extensive juvenile and adult criminal history. It considered that Lassen distributed methamphetamine while on parole, just a few weeks after getting out of prison. The district court also discussed mitigating factors like Lassens young age when he began using drugs and his mental health history. Weighing the factors differently than Lassen wanted and denying his request to vary downward from the Guidelines range “does not mean [the district court] abused its discretion.” United States v. Harrell, 982 F.3d 1137, 1141 (8th Cir. 2020).

We find that the district courts within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. The sentence is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.