Opinion ID: 222147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Briefs on Remand

Text: Ms. Lente renewed and supplemented her objections to the PSR and asked for a sentence within the Guidelines range. She argued that [t]he need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records convicted of similar crimes, a required consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), supports a sentence within the guideline range. R. Vol. 1 at 151. She summarized her review of federal sentencing practices in manslaughter cases from 2001 to 2009. Ms. Lente noted that her previous sentence of 216 months was grossly above other manslaughter sentences, based on examining other above-Guidelines sentences for manslaughter during the nine-year period. Id. at 152. Ms. Lente also reviewed sentences from other cases with similar offenders and similar offenses, noting that all of the defendants in those cases received sentences much lower than her sentence. When there was an upward departure or variance, it was moderate compared to the increase urged in her case. She concluded by arguing that the history and pattern of sentencing for manslaughter offenses support a conclusion that the Sentencing Commission formulated reasonable guidelines for the offense that satisfy the § 3553 goals in the overwhelming majority of cases. Thus, sentencing within those guidelines meets the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records and convicted of similar offenses. Id. at 155-56. The government argued that the § 3553(a) factors [o]verwhelmingly [w]arrant [a]n [u]pward [v]ariance. Id. at 207. The government analyzed all of the § 3553(a) factors, but focused primarily on the nature and circumstances of the offense, see § 3553(a)(1), emphasizing that Ms. Lente consumed an excessive amount of alcohol, drove without a driver's license, had a high blood alcohol content (BAC) of .21, and killed three people, including a twelve-year-old boy. With respect to § 3553(a)(6) and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the government argued that Ms. Lente's conduct caused so much destruction and was so outrageous that [her] case simply does not compare to other drunk-driving related fatalities. Id. at 213. The government reiterated that Ms. Lente had a high BAC and that she killed three people, which is much more than the `typical' involuntary manslaughter case. Id. at 214. The government concluded that to sentence [Ms. Lente] significantly above the guideline range and instead up towards the statutory maximum allowable by law poses little risk of a disparity with other like-criminals, as [Ms. Lente] is wholly in a category of her own. Id.