## Facts

- Dana Deegan, a member of the Three Affiliated Tribes, lived on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
- On October 20, 1998, Deegan secretly gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of her home; the baby was alive and breathing when delivered.
- About two hours later, Deegan fed, cleaned, and dressed the infant, placed him in a basket, and left the house with her other children, intentionally leaving the newborn without food, water, or a caregiver.
- Deegan did not return to the home for approximately two weeks; when she returned, she found the baby dead.
- Deegan placed the baby’s body in a suitcase and left the suitcase in a rural ditch area, where it was later discovered.
- Because the conduct occurred in Indian country, the case was prosecuted in federal court.
- In 2007, a grand jury indicted Deegan for first-degree murder and for making false statements to the FBI after she initially claimed the baby was stillborn before later admitting the baby was born alive and that she left him knowing he would die.
- Deegan entered a written plea agreement and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153; other charges were dismissed.
- The district court sentenced Deegan to 121 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, and denied her request for a major downward variance (probation or a very short prison term) based on her psychological and emotional condition at the time of the offense, her history of abuse, and her claim that she acted impulsively.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by refusing to vary substantially downward and imposing a 121-month, within-Guidelines sentence for second-degree murder despite Deegan’s mitigation evidence (mental health and abuse history) and her arguments about sentencing disparity based on state “infanticide” laws.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and the 121-month sentence.
- The court held that Deegan did not rebut the appellate presumption that a properly calculated, within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.
- The court concluded the district court acted within its discretion in weighing Deegan’s mitigation evidence against the seriousness of intentionally leaving a newborn to die and in selecting a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range.
- The court rejected Deegan’s reliance on more lenient state “infanticide” schemes as a basis for relief under § 3553(a)(6), explaining that the statute targets unwarranted disparities among federal defendants, not differences between federal and state punishment.
- Judge Bright dissented, concluding the sentence was greater than necessary in light of Deegan’s background and mental condition and would have favored a substantial reduction.

## Legal Principles

- Federal appellate review of sentence length is for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the sentence is unreasonable in light of § 3553(a).
- A sentence within a properly calculated advisory Guidelines range is presumed reasonable on appeal; the defendant bears the burden to show unreasonableness under § 3553(a).
- A district court may consider a defendant’s history, mental health, and other mitigating facts yet still impose a Guidelines sentence; disagreement with the district court’s weighing of factors generally does not establish abuse of discretion.
- The “unwarranted sentence disparities” factor in § 3553(a)(6) is aimed at disparities among similarly situated federal defendants, not differences between federal sentencing outcomes and state-law penalties for comparable conduct.

## Conclusion

United States v. Deegan holds that the Eighth Circuit will affirm a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence for second-degree murder where the district court considered the defendant’s claimed psychological impairment, abuse history, and arguments for a major variance, but reasonably determined that the gravity of intentionally abandoning a living newborn to die warranted a 121-month federal sentence and that state-law “infanticide” penalties did not show an unwarranted federal disparity under § 3553(a)(6).


United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625 (2010)