United States v. Hentges, No. 14-1455 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseHentges pleaded guilty to attempt to manufacture methamphetamine near a school, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C), 846, and 860. At sentencing, the district court determined that Hentges was a career offender, USSG 4B1.1; that he accepted responsibility for his offense; and that the advisory sentencing range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The court explained that even if Hentges were not a career offender, in which case the advisory sentencing range would have been 92 to 115 months’ imprisonment, the court would have varied upward under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), due to the seriousness of Hentges’s criminal conduct and his incorrigibility. Under either approach, the court declared, it would arrive at the same sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment. The court then granted the government’s motion to reduce Hentges’s sentence under USSG 5K1.1, based on his provision of substantial assistance. After Hentges was allowed to speak, the court announced that Hentges was sentenced to a term of 132 months’ imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erred in determining that he was a career offender; that its pronouncement of an alternative sentence was insufficient to justify the sentence imposed; and that the court denied him the right to allocution at sentencing.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. It is unnecessary to address whether the district court erred in finding defendant's prior convictions qualified him as a career offender as the district court's alternative decision to vary upward from the advisory guidelines range is sufficient to justify the sentence imposed; while the court did announce its intended sentence before granting defendant his right of allocution, the court did invite him to speak before imposing sentence, and this procedure does not violate Rule 32(i) or the Constitution.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 22, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.