Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02100/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stuart Wayne Reithemeyer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2100

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

* 

Stuart Wayne Reithemeyer, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 13, 2006

 Filed: November 22, 2006

___________

Before BYE, JOHN R. GIBSON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Stuart Wayne Reithemeyer on four counts of wiretapping and

acquitted him on counts of murder-for-hire and soliciting another to commit a crime

of violence. The district court1

 determined the advisory sentencing guidelines range

to be six to twelve months, and, based on the testimony of the defendant at trial,

applied the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence of thirty-six

months. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2006 Entry ID: 2111976
-2-

In April 2005, Michael Lewis contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in

Missouri and said that Reithemeyer had solicited him to kill Reithemeyer’s wife,

Elizabeth. The two were in the midst of divorce proceedings. Lewis had traveled to

Arkansas to meet with Reithemeyer and discuss conducting some surveillance of

Elizabeth Reithemeyer; at the end of the conversation, Lewis said, Reithemeyer

instead asked him to kill Elizabeth Reithemeyer, and later repeated this request

several times over the phone. This prompted Lewis to contact the FBI, and he agreed

to cooperate in a joint investigation by the FBI and the Arkansas State Police. 

Reithemeyer made several calls to Lewis, which Lewis recorded. Reithemeyer

urged Lewis to work quickly, as the couple had a divorce hearing scheduled for early

May. Lewis testified Reithemeyer agreed to pay him $650 to purchase the weapon he

would use to kill Elizabeth Reithemeyer. Reithemeyer met Lewis in Arkansas, gave

him an envelope containing $650 in cash, walked away without a word, and was

promptly arrested by the Arkansas State Police and charged with a state crime. 

A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Arkansas indicted Reithemeyer

on July 13, 2005, for causing another person to travel in interstate commerce with the

intent that a murder be committed, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. In September,

the government superceded the indictment, modifying the date of the original offense

and adding one charge of soliciting another to commit a crime of violence and four

charges of illegally wiretapping telephone conversations between Elizabeth

Reithemeyer and others. The district court denied Reithemeyer’s motion to sever the

four wiretapping counts. 

At trial, Reithemeyer testified he was not contracting with Lewis to kill his

wife, he was merely contracting with Lewis to plant drugs in her car so she would be

convicted and imprisoned “for a short term” on drug charges. He testified that his

motivation was to gain the upper hand in the custody battle for the couple’s children.

The jury acquitted Reithemeyer of murder-for-hire and soliciting a crime of violence,

Appellate Case: 06-2100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2006 Entry ID: 2111976
-3-

and convicted him on the wiretapping charges. After the jury reached its verdict,

Reithemeyer filed a motion for a new trial, or, alternatively, a judgment of acquittal.

Reithemeyer appeals based on trial delays, the district court’s failure to sever

certain counts, the denial of his motion for a new trial/judgment of acquittal, and the

district court’s upward variance in sentencing Reithemeyer.

Reithemeyer’s motion for a new trial/judgment of acquittal was based on four

tapes of telephone calls that had been admitted into evidence by stipulation, and which

apparently contained conversations Reithemeyer had intercepted beyond those

involving Elizabeth Reithemeyer. Reithemeyer moved to admit an affidavit from a

juror suggesting the jury based its verdict on those conversations. The district court

barred the affidavit under Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (a juror may testify only “on the

question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the

jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon

any juror”). 

Because the tapes were admitted by stipulation, the argument that their contents

could constitute extraneous or improper information before the jury must fail. United

States v. Rodriquez, 116 F.3d 1225, 1227 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Extrinsic or extraneous

influences include publicity received and discussed in the jury room, matters

considered by the jury but not admitted into evidence, and communications or other

contact between jurors and outside persons.” (internal quotations removed) (emphasis

added)).

As to the sentence, the issue is whether extraordinary circumstances exist in this

case justifying an upward variance from the advisory sentencing guidelines. The court

sentenced Reithemeyer to thirty-six months in prison – twenty-four months above the

upper end of the guideline range. The statutory maximum sentence for wire

interception is sixty months. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a).

Appellate Case: 06-2100 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2006 Entry ID: 2111976
-4-

On appeal, we review the district court's interpretation and application of the

guidelines de novo and any departure from the guideline range for an abuse of

discretion. United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). If we

conclude the guidelines were properly employed, we next “review [the] sentence for

unreasonableness, guided by the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”

United States v. Pizano, 403 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2005).

The district court explained orally at sentencing and in a supplementary opinion

that the conduct Reithemeyer admitted during his trial testimony implicated a number

of § 3553(a) factors necessitating a sentence above the guideline range. In particular,

the district court cited the need to protect the public, promote respect for the law, and

afford adequate deterrence.

The non-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court represents a

significant upward deviation from the guideline sentencing range. Nevertheless, our

review of the record satisfies us the district court carefully evaluated the § 3553(a)

factors, and after applying them to the facts of this case, arrived at an appropriate

sentence. 

We have reviewed the appellant’s other arguments and find them without

merit. As to those issues, we summarily affirm the district court under 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2100 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/22/2006 Entry ID: 2111976