Case Law United States v. Newhouse

United States v. Newhouse

Document Cited Authorities (86) Cited in (26) Related

919 F.Supp.2d 955

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Lori NEWHOUSE, Defendant.

No. CR11–3030–MWB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Iowa,

Central Division.

Jan. 30, 2013.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Shawn Stephen Wehde, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Mary C. Gryva, Frank & Gryva, PC, Omaha, NE, James F. Whalen, Federal Public Defender, Des Moines, IA, Max Samuel Wolson, Federal Public Defenders Office, Robert A. Wichser, Federal Public Defender, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.

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

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND                            ¦959   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Indictment, Guilty Plea, And Sentencing Hearing           ¦959    ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Arguments Of The Parties                                  ¦960    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Amicus curiaes arguments                              ¦960   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Newhouses arguments                                   ¦960   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦The prosecutions arguments                            ¦960   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                              ¦       ¦
+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II.  ¦LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                ¦960    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.  ¦Sentencing Methodology: Computing The Guideline Range,  Departures, And Variances        ¦960   ¦
¦   ¦    ¦                                                                                          ¦      ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦B.  ¦Step 1—Determination Of The Guideline Range                                             ¦962   ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦C.  ¦Step 2—Determination Of Whether To Depart                                               ¦964   ¦
+---+----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦D.  ¦Troublesome Aspects Of The Career Offender Guideline-Potential For A Policy Disagreement  ¦965   ¦
¦   ¦    ¦                                                                                          ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Background on policy disagreement based variances     ¦965   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦Flaws in the Career Offender Guideline                ¦968   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a.  ¦A flawed creation                                 ¦968   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦i.   ¦The Sentencing Commissions institutional role                     ¦968  ¦
+--+--+-+-+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ii.  ¦Flawed origins and expansions of the Career  Offender guideline  ¦969  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b.  ¦Failing to promote the goals of of sentencing     ¦974   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦i.    ¦Just punishment in light of the seriousness of the offense            ¦974  ¦
+--+--+-+-+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦ii.   ¦Protecting the public against nst further crimes of the defendant     ¦975  ¦
+--+--+-+-+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦iii.  ¦Deterrence                                                            ¦976  ¦
+--+--+-+-+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦iv.   ¦Rehabilitation in the most effective manner                           ¦976  ¦
+--+--+-+-+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦v.    ¦Unwarranted sentencing disparities—unwarranted uniformity           ¦977  ¦
+--+--+-+-+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦vi.   ¦Unwarranted sentencing disparities—similarly  situated defendants  ¦979  ¦
+--+--+-+-+------+----------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦  ¦  ¦ ¦ ¦vii.  ¦Promoting respect for the law                                         ¦980  ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦E.  ¦Step 3—Application Of The 3553(a) Factors               ¦981    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1.  ¦Overview of 3553(a)                                   ¦981   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2.  ¦The nature and circumstances of the offense           ¦981   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3.  ¦Newhouses history and characteristics                 ¦982   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦4.  ¦The need for the sentence imposed                     ¦983   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦5.  ¦The kinds of sentences available                      ¦987   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦6.  ¦Any pertinent policy statement                        ¦988   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦7.  ¦The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities  ¦988   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦8.  ¦The need to provide restitution                       ¦990   ¦
+----+----+----+------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦9.  ¦Consideration of downward variance and sentence       ¦990   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦i.   ¦Quasi-categorical policy disagreement       ¦990    ¦
+----+----+---+---+-----+--------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦ii.  ¦Variance and sentence                       ¦991    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦F.  ¦The Prosecutions Substantial Assistance Motions           ¦991    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦      ¦                                                             ¦       ¦
+------+-------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III.  ¦CONCLUSION                                                   ¦992    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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 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 ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2014
United States v. Valdez
"...range “because of the inequities of the career offender provisions.” Valdez Memo. ¶ 6, at 3 (citing United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (Bennett, J.)(attached as Doc. 72–1)). Last, Valdez “asserts that a sixty-month sentence, the statutory minimum, would suffice to ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Hayes
"...distributed and does not reflect the reality of the market for that drug.” Ortega, 2010 WL 1994870, at *7. In United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa.2013), I questioned whether there is a factual or logical basis for a relatively low amount of methamphetamine to trigger a fi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Amaya
"...varying levels of participation and blameworthiness in any drug distribution scheme. Unlike the defendant in United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955, 957–59 (N.D.Iowa 2013), to whom I recently granted a substantial downward variance, Amaya is not a mere pill smurfer, a low-level, non-v..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2015
United States v. Jeffers
"...that the Sentencing Guidelines concerning methamphetamine offenses, prior to the 2014 amendment, were too harsh); United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa 2013)(finding that a career offender guideline sentence was excessive, for a low-level, non-violent drug addict); United S..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2015
United States v. Feauto
"...of § 851 drug sentencing enhancements.”); United States v. Hayes, 948 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1026 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (“In United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa 2013), I questioned whether there is a factual or logical basis for a relatively low amount of methamphetamine to trigger a ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2014
United States v. Valdez
"...range “because of the inequities of the career offender provisions.” Valdez Memo. ¶ 6, at 3 (citing United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (Bennett, J.)(attached as Doc. 72–1)). Last, Valdez “asserts that a sixty-month sentence, the statutory minimum, would suffice to ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Hayes
"...distributed and does not reflect the reality of the market for that drug.” Ortega, 2010 WL 1994870, at *7. In United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa.2013), I questioned whether there is a factual or logical basis for a relatively low amount of methamphetamine to trigger a fi..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2013
United States v. Amaya
"...varying levels of participation and blameworthiness in any drug distribution scheme. Unlike the defendant in United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955, 957–59 (N.D.Iowa 2013), to whom I recently granted a substantial downward variance, Amaya is not a mere pill smurfer, a low-level, non-v..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2015
United States v. Jeffers
"...that the Sentencing Guidelines concerning methamphetamine offenses, prior to the 2014 amendment, were too harsh); United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa 2013)(finding that a career offender guideline sentence was excessive, for a low-level, non-violent drug addict); United S..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2015
United States v. Feauto
"...of § 851 drug sentencing enhancements.”); United States v. Hayes, 948 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1026 (N.D.Iowa 2013) (“In United States v. Newhouse, 919 F.Supp.2d 955 (N.D.Iowa 2013), I questioned whether there is a factual or logical basis for a relatively low amount of methamphetamine to trigger a ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.