United States v. Rachel Horn, No. 19-3513 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court was aware of defendant's arguments seeking a downward variance based on policy disagreements with the Guidelines, but the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the arguments; the court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 3553(a) factors, and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3513 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Rachel Marie Horn lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: June 15, 2020 Filed: July 20, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rachel Marie Horn pleaded guilty to distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). After determining that Horn’s advisory sentencing range was 360 months’ to life imprisonment under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines), the district court1 varied downward and sentenced her to 240 months’ imprisonment. We affirm. Horn contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to address her policy argument that the Guidelines erroneously assign culpability based on methamphetamine purity and that the Guidelines’ ratio is not based on empirical evidence. She argues further that the court abused its discretion when it declined to vary downward further because of her traumatic childhood. The record establishes that the district court was aware of her policy challenges, as reflected in her counsel’s statement at sentencing that “I know the Court is well aware of that argument.” Sentencing Tr. 3; see United States v. Carter, 960 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (“District courts are free to vary from the Guidelines based on [policy arguments], but it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to decline to do so.”); United States v. Roberson, 517 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[A] district court that is aware of an argument does not abuse its discretion by not considering it.”). Likewise, the district court was well aware of and considered Horn’s life circumstances when it imposed a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range. “I have considered her life circumstances. They are nothing short of tragic.” Sentencing Tr. 11; see United States v. King, 898 F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weigh mitigating factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify reversal.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The sentence is thus not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Merrell, 842 F.3d 577, 585 (8th Cir. 2016) (“[W]hen a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- varying downward still further.” (quoting United States v. Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719, 734 (8th Cir. 2015))). The sentence is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-
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.
