United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3729

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Ryan John Reif,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City

____________

Submitted: November 12, 2018

Filed: April 11, 2019

____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Ryan Reif distributed heroin to a nineteen-year-old woman, his girlfriend, who

ingested the drug and died as a result. Reif pleaded guilty to distribution of heroin

to a person under the age of twenty-one. The offense carried a statutory penalty of

one to forty years’ imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 859, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C). In
the plea agreement, the government agreed to dismiss a more serious charge of

distribution of heroin resulting in death. See id. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

The advisory sentencing guideline range for Reif’s offense of conviction was

15-21 months’ imprisonment. The government moved for an upward departure under

the guidelines and an upward variance fromthe guidelines under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

on the ground that Reif’s offense resulted in death. The district court observed that 1

Reif had trafficked not only heroin, but also other drugs, and “basically had a

pharmacy” from which he was “making available to others controlled substances.” 

The court explained that the offense of conviction was “an extremely serious crime”

that required “a serious consequence,” that the guideline range did not take into

account the victim’s death, and that Reif’s offense was “akin to an involuntary

manslaughter case.” The court ultimately sentenced Reif to 96 months’

imprisonment, concluding that it would reach “exactly the same sentence” under

either a guidelines departure or a variance from the guidelines.

Reif appeals and contends that the district court abused its discretion in

fashioning the sentence. He does not challenge the district court’s decision to

sentence above the advisory range, but he argues that the court failed to provide

adequate reasons for choosing a term of 96 months. We conclude that the sentence

is permissible as a departure under the guidelines and that it is not unreasonable with

regard to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Under the guidelines, the court may depart upward if death resulted from the

offense of conviction, USSG § 5K2.1, and to reflect the actual seriousness of the

offense based on conduct underlying a charge dismissed as part of a plea agreement,

id. § 5K2.21. Both policy statements apply here, and the court did not abuse its

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the District of South Dakota.

-2-
discretion in selecting a 75-month upward departure. The policy statement on death

advises the court to “give consideration to matters that would normally distinguish

among levels of homicide.” Id. § 5K2.1. Here, the district court found Reif’s conduct

most akin to involuntary manslaughter, and sentenced him to the maximum

punishment available under the federal involuntary manslaughter statute. See 18

U.S.C. § 1112(b). In considering the dismissed charge of drug distribution resulting

in death, the court recognized that the statutory minimum sentence for that offense

would have been twenty years’ imprisonment, and that the advisory range of 15-21

months’ imprisonment under-represented the actual seriousness of Reif’s offense

conduct. In arriving at an upward departure of 75 months, and a total guideline

sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment, the court thus considered the relevant factors

under the applicable policy statements and fashioned a sentence that bore a

reasonable relationship to those factors. There was no abuse of discretion.

Reif also argues that the sentence is unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). We review reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and because Reif’s sentence

was consistent with the advisory guidelines (after a permissible guidelines departure),

we presume that it is reasonable. See United States v. Brave Bull, 828 F.3d 735, 741

(8th Cir. 2016). Reif’s principal complaint isthat the district court here fixed a longer

term of imprisonment than did the sentencing court in United States v. Nossan, 647

F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2011), where a defendant who distributed heroin resulting in a

death was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Id. at 825. That a 60-month term

was reasonable in Nossan, however, does not mean that 60 months is the only

reasonable term of imprisonment for a defendant whose distribution of heroin results

in death. District judges are permitted to sentence within a range of reasonableness,

and they are not required to conform to decisions of other sentencing judges in cases

involving allegedly similar offenders. When different judges arrive at different

reasonable sentences for similar offenders, there is no principled basis for an

appellate court to say that only one of the sentences is appropriate. See United States

-3-
v. McElderry, 875 F.3d 863, 865 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). In this case, the district

court noted Reif’s youth and acknowledged the hardship of addiction during

adolescence, but reasonably concluded that other factors such as the seriousness of

the offense and the need for deterrence warranted a longer sentence than what Reif

proposed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-