Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02502/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02502-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christine Marie Goodwin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2502

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Christine Marie Goodwin, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2007

Filed: May 25, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

Christine Goodwin and Lynn Lazenby entered into plea agreements and pleaded

guilty to participating in an extensive conspiracy to manufacture and distribute

methamphetamine in the Northern District of Iowa. Goodwin stipulated to purchasing

a larger quantity of a methamphetamine precursor in furtherance of the conspiracy,

which resulted in the bottom of her advisory guidelines sentencing range being

seventeen months higher than the bottom of Lazenby’s range. Goodwin and Lazenby

were sentenced by different district judges. One judge gave Lazenby a substantial

variance and sentenced her to twelve months in prison. The government appealed.

The other judge sentenced Goodwin to 87 months in prison, the bottom of her range.

Goodwin appealed, relying in large part on the disparity in the sentences imposed on

Appellate Case: 06-2502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313197
-2-

two conspirators who were in many other respects similarly situated. We consolidated

the appeals and after oral argument remanded both cases for resentencing. United

States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2006).

On remand, Goodwin and Lazenby were separately sentenced by Chief Judge

Linda R. Reade. Judge Reade sentenced Lazenby to 70 months in prison, the bottom

of her range, and then conducted Goodwin’s sentencing hearing that same day. After

extended arguments by counsel, the court explained that it had considered all fact

materials in the sentencing record, the sentences imposed on Goodwin’s coconspirators, the fact that Goodwin engaged in illegal conduct while on state

probation, her family situation and employment history, and the calculation of her

advisory guidelines sentencing range. The court noted that Goodwin’s cooperation

with the government had been taken into account with a three-level acceptance of

responsibility reduction and a two-level safety valve reduction and found that “[t]he

steps she took to improve herself are commendable, but they’re not extraordinary.”

Taking into account “all the statutory factors” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court

declined to depart or vary downward from the guidelines range and again sentenced

Goodwin to 87 months in prison. Goodwin appeals the sentence as unreasonable

under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

On appeal, Goodwin argues that the district court violated the law of the case

when it imposed the identical sentence that we reversed in Lazenby. We disagree. In

deciding the first appeals, we were concerned by “the extreme disparity between the

sentences imposed on two similarly situated conspirators.” 439 F.3d at 934. After

concluding that Lazenby’s sentence was unreasonable, we remanded her case for

resentencing. We then remanded Goodwin’s case for resentencing as well, noting that

this would provide the district court an opportunity to address a number of “highly

unusual” circumstances -- the extreme sentencing disparity among similarly situated

conspirators, whether the stipulated drug quantities had produced “Guidelines-created

disparity,” and whether Goodwin’s cooperation had been adequately taken into

Appellate Case: 06-2502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313197
-3-

account. We in no way limited or restricted the court’s sentencing discretion under

Booker on remand.

Goodwin further argues that it was unreasonable for the district court to

sentence both Lazenby and Goodwin at the bottom of their respective advisory

guidelines ranges, “even when factoring in the different drug quantities,” because of

“the difference in their post-indictment cooperation.” The district court carefully

explained how it took these and other relevant facts and the statutory sentencing

factors into account in determining the sentence to impose. The extreme sentencing

disparity among similarly situated conspirators has been eliminated. After careful

review of the sentencing record, we conclude that the sentence imposed was well

within the range of reasonableness left by Booker to the district court’s discretion.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2502 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313197