# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 37 29

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Ry an Jo hn Rei f,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Rap id Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 12 , 20 18 Fi le d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ry an Rei f di st rib ut ed he ro in to a ni ne te en -y ear- ol d wom an , hi s gi rlf rie nd

, who

in ge st ed th e dr ug an d di ed as a res ul t. Rei f pl ead ed gu i l t y t o di st rib ut io n of he ro in

to a pe rs on un de r th e ag e o f twen ty-on e. The of fen se carr ie d a st at ut or y pe na lt y of

on e to fo rty y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t. Se e 21 U.S.C. §§ 85 9, 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

. Int h e p l e a ag reem en t, th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to di sm is s a m or e se rio us ch arg e of

di st rib ut io n o f he ro in res ul ti ng in de at h. Se e id

. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(C)

.

The ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge fo r Rei f’s of fen se of co nv ic ti on was
15 -2 1 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The go ve rn m en t m ov ed fo r an up ward de pa rtu re un de r th e gu id el in es an d an up ward va ria nc e fro m th e gu id el in es un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a),

on th e gr ou nd th at Rei f’s of fen se res ul te d in de at h. The di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed th at 1

Rei f ha d tra ffi ck ed no t on ly he ro in

, bu t al so ot he r dr ug s, a n d “b a s i c al ly ha d a ph arm acy” fro m whi ch he was “ m ak in g av ai la bl e to ot he rs co nt ro ll ed su bs t a n ces .”

The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on was “ an ex tre m el y se rio us cri m e”

th at req ui red “ a se rio u s c o n se qu en ce,” th at th e gu id el in e ran ge di d no t ta ke in to

acco un t th e vi ct im ’s de at h, an d th at Rei f’s of fen se was “ ak in to an in vo lu nt ary

m a n s l a u g h te r cas e.” The co ur t ul ti m at el y se nt en ced Rei f to 96 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t, co nc lu di ng th at it wou ld reac h “ ex act ly th e sa m e se nt en ce” un de r ei th er a g ui de li ne s d ep art ur e o r a v ari an ce fr om th e g ui de li ne s.

Rei f ap pe al s an d co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b u s e d it s di sc ret io n in

fas hi on in g th e se nt en ce. He do es no t ch al le ng e th e di st r i c t c o u r t ’s de ci si on to

se nt en ce ab ov e t h e ad vi so ry ran ge , bu t he arg ue s th at th e co ur t fai le d to pr ov id e ad eq ua te reas on s fo r ch oo si ng a te rm of 9 6 m on th s. W e co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce is pe rm is si bl e as a de pa rtu re un de r th e gu id el in es an d th at it is no t un reas on ab le wit h

reg ard to th e fac to rs set for th in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a).

Und er t he gu id el in es , th e co ur t m ay de pa rt u pwa rd if d eat h re su lt ed fro m th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on , USSG § 5K2 .1, an d to refl ect th e act ua l se rio u s n e s s of th e of fen se ba se d on co nd uc t un de rlyin g a ch arg e di sm is se d as pa rt of a pl ea ag reem en t,
id

. § 5 K 2

. 2 1

. Bo th po li cy st at em en ts ap pl y he re, an d th e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

The Hon or ab le Je ffre y L. Vik en , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1
th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.

-2

-di sc ret io n in se le ct in g a 75 -m on th up ward de pa rtu re. The po li cy st at em en t on de at h

ad vi se s th e co ur t to “ gi ve co ns id erat io n to m at te rs th at wou ld no rm al l y d i s t i n g ui sh

am on g le ve ls of ho m ic id e.” Id

. § 5K2 .1. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d Rei f’s co nd uc t

m os t ak in to in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r, an d se nt e n c e d hi m to th e m ax im um

p un is hm en t av ai la bl e un de r th e fed eral in vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r st at ut e. S e e 1 8

U.S.C. § 11 12 (b ). In co ns id eri ng th e di sm is se d ch arg e of dr ug di st rib ut io n res ul ti ng in de at h, th e c o ur t reco gn iz ed th at th e st at ut or y min imu m se nt en ce fo r th at of fen se

wou ld ha ve be en twen ty y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, an d t ha t t he ad vi so ry ran ge of 15 -2 1

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t un de r-re pr es en te d th e act ua l se rio us ne ss of Rei f’s o f f e ns e

co nd uc t. In arri vi ng at an up ward de pa rtu re of 75 m on th s, an d a to ta l gu id el in e

se nt en ce of 96 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, th e co ur t th us co ns id ered th e rel ev an t fact or s

un de r th e ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts an d fas hi on ed a se nt en ce th at bo re a

reas on ab le rel at io ns hi p t o t ho se fact or s. Th ere was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

Rei f al so arg ue s th at th e se n t e n c e i s un reas on ab le wit h reg ard to 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3( a). W e rev ie w reas on ab le ne ss un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n

st an da rd

, Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7)

, an d be cau se Rei f’s se nt en ce

was co ns is te nt wit h th e ad vi so ry gu id el ines (a ft er a pe rm is si bl e gu id el in es de pa rtu re),

we pr es um e th at it is reas on ab le

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Bra ve Bul l

, 82 8 F.3 d 73 5, 74 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Rei f’s pr in ci pa l co m pl ai nt is th at th e di st ric t co ur t he re fix ed a lo ng er

te rm of im

pr is on m en t th an di d th e se nt en ci ng co ur t i n Uni te d S ta te s v. No ss an , 64 7

F.3 d 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), whe re a de fen da n t who di st rib ut ed he ro in res ul ti ng in a de at h was se nt en ced to 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Id

. at 82 5. Tha t a 60 -m on th te rm

was reas on ab le in No ss an , ho wev er, do es no t m ean th at 60 m on th s is t h e o nl y

reas on ab le te rm of im

pr is on m en t fo r a de fen da nt who se di st rib ut io n of he ro in res ul ts
in de at h. Dis tri ct jud ge s are pe rm it te d to se nt en ce wit hi n a ran ge of reas on ab le ne ss ,

an d th ey are no t req ui red to co nf or m to de ci si on s of ot he r se nt en ci ng jud ge s in cas es in vo lv in g al le g e d ly si m il ar of fen de rs

. W he n di ffer en t jud ge s arri ve at di ffer en t

reas on ab le se nt en ces fo r si m il ar of fen de rs , th ere is no pr in ci pl ed ba si s fo r an

ap pe ll at e co ur t to sa y th at on ly on e of th e se nt en ces is ap pr op ria te

. Se e Uni te d St at es

-3

-v. McEld er ry , 87 5 F.3 d 86 3, 86 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (p er cu ria m ). In th is cas e, th e di st ric t

c o u r t n o t ed Rei f’s y ou th an d ack no wled ge d th e ha rd sh ip of ad di ct io n du rin g ad ol es cen ce, b ut reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at ot he r fact or s su ch as th e se rio us ne ss of

th e o ffen se an d th e ne ed fo r de te rren ce warra nt ed a lo ng er se nt en ce th an wha t Rei f

pr op os ed

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-