United States v. Cox, 4:16–cr–00197
| Decision Date | 25 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | 4:16–cr–00197 |
| Citation | 271 F.Supp.3d 1085 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Melissa Marie COX, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Gerald B. Feuerhelm, Feuerhelm Law Office P.C., B. John Burns, III, Federal Public Defenders Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.
Stephan Kenneth Bayens, Clifford D. Wendel, United States Attorney's Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 19, 2017, this Court sentenced Defendant Melissa Marie Cox to a sixty-month term of probation. This memorandum explicates the Court's analysis and reasoning for the sentence.
This Court is tasked with crafting a "sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In doing so, the Court must consider "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." Id. § 3553(a)(1). The Court must also consider "the need for the sentence imposed," in that the sentence should "reflect the seriousness of the offense, ... promote respect for the law, and ... provide just punishment for the offense;" "afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;" "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;" and "provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment." Id. § 3553(a)(2). Along with these factors, the Court must consider the kinds of sentences available, including those advised by the Sentencing Commission. Id. § 3553(a)(3)–(5). Furthermore, the Court must "avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct" and assess "the need to provide restitution to any victims." Id. § 3553(a)(6), (7). Finally, because a term of imprisonment is available in this case, the Court must heed the statutory admonition "recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation." Id. § 3582(a).
On December 1, 2016, Defendant was pulled over by local law enforcement in a traffic stop. The officers determined Defendant's driver's license was suspended and the passenger, Jacob Lathrop, Defendant's fiancée, had an active warrant for his arrest. The officers searched Defendant and discovered methamphetamine, two glass pipes, a butane torch, and $3375 in her purse. The officers also discovered a folding knife, two loaded magazines, and a soft weapons holster on Lathrop. The officers then searched Defendant's car and found a .380 caliber pistol in the passenger-side glove compartment. Defendant and Lathrop were both taken into custody. Once at the jail, the officers searched Defendant again and found three more small bags of methamphetamine on Defendant's person. The total amount of methamphetamine seized from Defendant exceeded sixty grams.
On December 20, 2017, the Government filed a two-count indictment charging Defendant with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and charging Lathrop with one count of felon in possession of a firearm. Clerk's No. 3. Subsequently, Defendant spoke with law enforcement officers and informed them that the vehicle she was driving when she was stopped was registered in her name but actually belonged to Lathrop. She further informed the officers the firearm seized during the search of the vehicle also belonged to Lathrop. Defendant admitted to the officers that, prior to being pulled over that day, she and Lathrop had engaged in a drug transaction in which Lathrop had sold methamphetamine to an unidentified male. She further informed the officers the methamphetamine found in her possession was left over from the drug transaction and the cash was the proceeds from the transaction. Defendant also informed the officers she had accompanied Lathrop to drug transactions on two or three separate occasions previously. Defendant informed the officers she had seen another individual deliver large quantities of methamphetamine to Lathrop at Defendant's home and Lathrop gave that individual methamphetamine as payment for the delivery. Ultimately, Defendant was found to be responsible for 907.2 grams of methamphetamine mixture.
On April 17, 2017, Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), a Class C felony. See Clerk's No. 52. On May 12, 2017, the Court accepted Defendant's plea and adjudicated her guilty. Clerk's No. 57.
It now falls to this Court to fashion a sentence for Defendant that is "sufficient, but not greater than necessary." Id. § 3553(a). As noted above, § 3553(a) delineates a number of factors courts must consider when determining an appropriate sentence. Id. Those factors include pragmatic concerns, such as: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; the kinds of sentences available; the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recommended sentence, expressed through its advisory Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines" or "USSG"), and pertinent policy statements; the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities "among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct"; and "the need to provide restitution to any victims." Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7). The factors also include the aforementioned policy goals: reflecting the seriousness of the offense; promoting respect for the law; providing just punishment for the offense; adequately deterring criminal conduct; protecting the public from further crimes of the defendant; and providing the defendant with needed care, training, or treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2).
When imposing a sentence, this Court is not bound by the Sentencing Guidelines, but "must consult those Guidelines and take them into account." United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 264, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed district courts to "begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range." Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Then, "after giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the district judge should ... consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party." Id.
At the sentencing hearing, the parties stipulated to a total offense level of twenty-three and a criminal history category of one.2 The parties agreed the Guidelines recommended sentence range is forty-six to fifty-seven months' imprisonment followed by one to three years of supervised release and a fine between $20,000 and $1,000,000. USSG §§ 5A, 5D1.2, 5E1.2(c)(4). Defendant requested a variance from the Guidelines range under § 3553(a), based in part upon her difficult childhood, her conduct while on pre-trial release, and her family circumstances. The Government did not object.
Defendant has asked this Court to impose only a sentence of probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a). The Government has recommended a sentence within the Guidelines range but conceded at the hearing that circumstances exist that may warrant a variance in this case. After carefully considering the § 3553(a) factors, the Court grants Defendant's request for a variance and imposes a sentence of probation for the following reasons.
Congress has directed sentencing courts to consider "the nature and circumstances of the offense" as well as "the history and characteristics of the defendant" when imposing a sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Several federal appellate courts have held sentencing courts may consider a defendant's family circumstances when analyzing the factors of § 3553(a).3 See, e.g. , United States v. Williams , 505 Fed.Appx. 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2012) (); United States v. Underwood , 639 F.3d 1111, 1114 (8th Cir. 2011) (). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has noted that prior to Gall , a sentencing court's consideration of family circumstances was also "disfavored in the § 3553(a) analysis." United States v. Munoz–Nava , 524 F.3d 1137, 1148 (10th Cir. 2008). However, since Gall , a sentencing court may rely on these factors in crafting an appropriate sentence. Id.
Indeed, in Munoz–Nava , the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's careful examination of the defendant's family circumstances in determining a variance was warranted under § 3553(a). Id. The sentencing court had imposed a prison term of one year and one day, home confinement of twelve months, and five years of supervised release—a significant deviation from the calculated Guidelines range of forty-six to fifty-seven months' imprisonment. Id. at 1142. And in United States v. Lehmann , 513 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 2008), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentence of probation, which substantially deviated from the advisory Guidelines range of thirty-seven to forty-six months' imprisonment, after concluding a variance under § 3553(a) was warranted based on expert testimony that a prison term would negatively impact the emotional development of the defendant's young son.
Furthermore, there is compelling scholarship that demonstrates...
To continue reading
Request your trial