UNITED STATES v. MOORE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-02-09No. No. 20-1416

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's 151-month sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to reject Moore's request for a downward variance based on policy disagreement with the methamphetamine sentencing guidelines.

Jon Barry Moore pleaded guilty to methamphetamine possession with intent to distribute and received a 151-month prison sentence within the federal sentencing guidelines. On appeal, Moore argued that the sentencing court should have reduced his sentence based on a disagreement with the guideline provisions governing methamphetamine purity calculations, which he claimed made arbitrary distinctions between different forms of the drug.

The appellate court rejected Moore's argument, holding that while district courts have discretion to depart downward from the methamphetamine guidelines when they disagree with the policy underlying those provisions, they are not required to do so. The sentencing court properly considered Moore's position and explained its rejection by noting that the methamphetamine quantity attributed to Moore was likely an underestimate rather than an overestimate of his actual involvement.

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

Key issues

Whether a district court must depart downward from methamphetamine sentencing guidelines based on perceived policy defects
Substantive reasonableness of within-guidelines sentences
Scope of judicial discretion to vary from sentencing guidelines

Procedural posture

Moore appealed his within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court for methamphetamine trafficking.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Jon Barry Moore pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district court

sentenced him to 151 months in prison. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Moore contends his within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues the court should have varied downward based on a policy disagreement with U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), which he believes creates an arbitrary distinction between “actual” pure meth and “less pure” meth. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sharkey, 895 F.3d 1077, 1080 (8th Cir. 2018).

The district court may vary from the meth guidelines based on a policy disagreement, but nothing mandates it do so. See id. at 1082. See also United States v. Binion, 801 Fed. Appx. 459, 462 (8th Cir. 2020) (“[W]hile the district court could have granted a downward variance based on a disagreement with the Guidelines’ treatment of methamphetamine purity ․ it had the discretion to decline to do so.”), citing Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 110, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). As required, the district court considered Moores argument before rejecting it, noting that “if anything, the amount of methamphetamine attributed to the defendant, pure or otherwise, is likely an underestimation of the amount of methamphetamine the defendant was involved with.” The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Moores request to vary downward. See id. * * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.