Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02483/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02483-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Leroy Goody
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2483

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Jack Leroy Goody, * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2006

Filed: March 31, 2006 (Corrected 4/6/06)

___________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Jack Goody pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute

methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), 846, and the district court

sentenced him to 72 months' imprisonment. The United States appeals, contending

that the sentence is unreasonable. We remand for resentencing. 

Mr. Goody, along with several others, manufactured methamphetamine in a

shed on his farm. Mr. Goody helped steal methamphetamine precursors and used

methamphetamine that the conspiracy produced. Although most of the

methamphetamine that the conspirators produced was for their personal use, some was

sold to third parties. Mr. Goody hid both the lab and his drug use from his family, coAppellate Case: 05-2483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027657
-2-

workers, and community until a police search of the Goody farm revealed a room

specially constructed for manufacturing methamphetamine in a shed one hundred

yards from the Goody residence. In the room were large quantities of

methamphetamine precursors and equipment for making the drug. Mr. Goody tested

positive for methamphetamine use while he was awaiting trial, and he deceived his

family about his involvement in the drug conspiracy even after pleading guilty to one

count of conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. 

The offense of conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years

in prison, but by submitting to an interview with law enforcement officials in which

he revealed all that he knew about the conspiracy, Mr. Goody became eligible for

relief under the sentencing guidelines' so-called safety-valve provision, see U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2. This resulted in a reduction in his offense level from 37 to 35. See U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(7). Both the prosecution and defense agreed that the applicable advisory

guideline range in these circumstances was 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. But the

district judge sentenced Mr. Goody to 72 months in prison, which was less than half

the sentence that the prosecution had requested and ten percent lower than what

Mr. Goody himself had asked for.

The United States argues that the district judge inappropriately decided to

sentence Mr. Goody below the range specified in the guidelines. When, as here, there

is no challenge to the district court's calculation of the guideline range, we review its

sentencing decision for reasonableness, taking into account the matters listed in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The reasonableness standard is "akin to our traditional review

for abuse of discretion." United States v. Gatewood, 438 F.3d 894, 896 (8th Cir.

2006). Either the decision to grant a variance from the guideline sentence or the

extent of such a variance may cause a sentence to be unreasonable. United States v.

Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). Because "[t]he Guidelines were

fashioned taking the ... § 3553(a) factors into account and are the product of years of

careful study," a decision to grant a § 3553(a) variance from the presumptively

Appellate Case: 05-2483 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027657
-3-

reasonable guideline range must be justified by reference to circumstances identified

in that section. United States v. Claiborne, No. 05-2198, 2006 WL 452899, *1 (8th

Cir. Feb. 27, 2006). Additionally, we have held that absent exceptional facts,

sentencing a defendant to a sentence dramatically lower than that recommended by

the guidelines is an abuse of the district court's discretion. Id. at *2.

Here, the district court sentenced Mr. Goody to a term of imprisonment that was

far outside the range that the sentencing guidelines recommended. We see nothing

extraordinary or exceptional about Mr. Goody's situation. While he did accept

responsibility for his conduct and provide information to law enforcement, he did not

take part in controlled purchases, contribute to the investigation of other drug

offenders, or assist the government in any way that endangered himself or his family.

Given these circumstances, we think that the sentence is presumptively unreasonable.

In fashioning an appropriate sentence, a district court is allowed to consider "the

need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records

who have been found guilty of similar conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The district

court found that Mr. Goody's involvement in the conspiracy was roughly equivalent

to that of another member of the conspiracy, Raymond Gordon, who received a 72-

month sentence, and the court used this finding to justify giving Mr. Goody the same

sentence.

We discern a number of relevant differences between Mr. Gordon's and

Mr. Goody's circumstances. Mr. Gordon's sentence was based on a much smaller

quantity of drugs and included a reduction for his being a minor participant in the

conspiracy, a reduction that Mr. Goody did not receive. Mr. Goody's construction of

a secret facility on his property for methamphetamine manufacture constituted a much

larger contribution to the goals of the conspiracy than did Mr. Gordon's conduct.

Unlike Mr. Goody, Mr. Gordon received a three-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility. The guideline range for Mr. Gordon was 97 to 121 months'

Appellate Case: 05-2483 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027657
-4-

imprisonment, but the government filed a motion to reduce his sentence for substantial

assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 due to Mr. Gordon's cooperation against his codefendants; pursuant to this motion, the court sentenced Mr. Gordon to 72 months'

imprisonment. No similar motion was filed for Mr. Goody. Given the disparities in

the quantity of drugs that each man was charged with, their relative levels of

cooperation and acceptance of responsibility, and their varying contributions to the

conspiracy, it was error for the district court to find that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Goody's

circumstances were so similar that the interests of justice required them to receive

identical sentences.

We decline Mr. Goody's invitation to consider statistics that indicate that the

national average sentence for drug trafficking is 80 months. That figure was

computed by using sentences for trafficking in all illicit drugs, and from the data that

Mr. Goody presents, we are unable to conclude that his sentence exceeds that typically

given for trafficking in methamphetamine.

For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and

remand for resentencing. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2483 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2006 Entry ID: 2027657