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 262-month sentence was affirmed as substantively reasonable.

Cody Michael Lassen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received a 262-month prison sentence based on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The district court determined Lassen was a career offender with a substantial criminal history spanning both juvenile and adult offenses, and imposed a sentence at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. Lassen argued on appeal that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the trial court failed to properly consider the statutory sentencing factors and should have granted his request for a downward departure from the Guidelines.

The appellate court upheld the sentence, finding that the district court properly considered all relevant sentencing factors under the statute, including Lassen's extensive criminal background, the fact that he resumed drug distribution while on parole shortly after his release from prison, and mitigating circumstances such as his young age when drug use began and mental health issues. The court determined that simply disagreeing with how the trial judge weighed these factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion, and that a sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.

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

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion in weighing statutory sentencing factors
Whether a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable
Whether the trial court properly considered mitigating factors in declining to grant a downward variance

Procedural posture

Lassen appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, challenging the substantive reasonableness of a 262-month prison sentence imposed within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

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[Unpublished]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.