United States v. Newhouse, CR11-3030-MWB

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LORI NEWHOUSE, Defendant.
• Docket Number: No. CR11-3030-MWB,CR11-3030-MWB
• Decision Date: 30 January 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
LORI NEWHOUSE, Defendant.

No. CR11-3030-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

DATED: January 30, 2013

SENTENCING OPINION AND STATEMENT OF REASONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..............................................6

A. Indictment, Guilty Plea, And Sentencing Hearing...........................6
B. Arguments Of The Parties........................................................8

1. Amicus curiae's arguments...............................................8
2. Newhouse's arguments....................................................8
3. The prosecution's arguments............................................8

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS........................................................................9

A. Sentencing Methodology: Computing The Guideline Range, Departures, And Variances.......................................................9
B. Step 1-Determination Of The Guideline Range.............................12
C. Step 2-Determination Of Whether To Depart...............................16
D. Troublesome Aspects Of The Career Offender Guideline-Potential For A Policy Disagreement.........................................17

1. Background on policy disagreement based variances.............17
2. Flaws in the Career Offender Guideline.............................23

a. A flawed creation ................................................23

i. The Sentencing Commission's institutional
role ......................................................... 23
ii. Flawed origins and expansions of the Career Offender guideline.......................................25

b. Failing to promote the goals of sentencing..................35

Page 2

i. Just punishment in light of the seriousness of the offense ................................................35
ii. Protecting the public against further crimes of the defendant.............................................36
iii. Deterrence.................................................38
iv. Rehabilitation in the most effective manner........39
v. Unwarranted sentencing disparities-unwarranted uniformity................................40
vi. Unwarranted sentencing disparities-similarly situated defendants ......................................44
vii. Promoting respect for the law .........................45

E. Step 3- Application Of The § 3553(a) Factors..............................47

1. Overview of § 3553(a)...................................................47
2. The nature and circumstances of the offense.......................48
3. Newhouse's history and characteristics..............................49
4. The need for the sentence imposed ...................................51
5. The kinds of sentences available ......................................59
6. Any pertinent policy statement.........................................59
7. The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities............ 60
8. The need to provide restitution ........................................63
9. Consideration of downward variance and sentence................ 63

i. Quasi-categorical policy disagreement............... 64
ii. Variance and sentence.................................. 65

F. The Prosecution's Substantial Assistance Motions......................... 66

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 67

Does the grid and bear it scheme of the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Career Offender recidivist enhancement, § 4B1.1, raise a specter of aperiodic, irrational, and

Page 3

arbitrary sentencing guideline ranges in some cases?¹ This issue is squarely raised by Lori Ann Newhouse, a low-level pill smurfer, "[a] person who busily goes from store to store acquiring pseudoephedrine pills for a meth cook, usually in exchange for finished product."² Not only is Newhouse a mere pill smurfer, she is truly a "one day" Career Offender because her two prior drug predicate offenses arose out of a single police raid of a Motel 6 room over a decade ago, on February 26, 2002, in Altoona, Iowa, when Newhouse was just 22 years old. The police found Newhouse and three others in the motel room. Newhouse was charged in state court and pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver 3.29 grams of methamphetamine and 14.72 grams of psilocybin mushrooms. She was sentenced to probation on both charges, but on different days, by Chief Judge Arthur Gamble of the Fifth Judicial District of Iowa. For reasons unknown, but likely random, the local prosecutor filed the two charges on separate days. Ironically, if the two charges had been filed in the same charging document or the defense lawyer, the prosecutor, the judge or the court administer had

Page 4

scheduled the two sentencings for the same day—Newhouse would not be a Career Offender.

Because of Newhouse's Career Offender status, her U.S. Sentencing Guideline range was enhanced from 70-87 months to a staggering and mind-numbing 262 to 327 months. This breathes real life into the observation of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a year before Newhouse pled to the state court drug charges, that: "The consequences of being deemed a career offender for purposes of section 4B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are grave." United States v. Hoults, 240 F.3d 647, 648 (7th Cir. 2001)...