## Facts

- Douglas Young pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B).
- Young had one prior felony drug conviction that was approximately 17 years old.
- For the drug quantities involved, § 841(b)(1)(B) set a 5-year mandatory minimum and a 40-year maximum.
- If the government filed an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851, the mandatory minimum would increase to 10 years and the statutory maximum could increase to life.
- At sentencing, the court examined U.S. Sentencing Commission data indicating wide district-to-district and intra-district variation in whether prosecutors sought § 851 enhancements for eligible defendants.
- The Attorney General issued national guidance concerning § 851 decisions shortly before Young’s sentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether extreme geographic and intra-district variation in prosecutors’ use of 21 U.S.C. § 851 is relevant to sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including § 3553(a)(6)’s instruction to avoid unwarranted disparities.
2. Whether, considering Young’s circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors, the court should impose a sentence consistent with the enhanced mandatory minimum associated with a § 851 recidivist enhancement.

## Decision

- The court sentenced Young to 24 months’ imprisonment.
- The court imposed four years of supervised release on each count, to run concurrently.
- The court declined to impose a sentence reflecting the § 851-enhanced mandatory minimum, concluding that such a sentence was not warranted under § 3553(a).

## Legal Principles

- Sentencing courts must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Under § 3553(a)(6), courts may consider whether a sentencing practice would create or perpetuate unwarranted disparities among similarly situated defendants.
- Prosecutorial charging practices affecting statutory penalties—including discretionary decisions to seek § 851 enhancements—may be considered insofar as they bear on disparity and the overall § 3553(a) analysis.
- A court may vary downward where an enhanced sentence would exceed what is necessary to achieve punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and respect for law under § 3553(a)(2).

## Conclusion

The court imposed a substantial downward variance and declined to sentence Young as though a § 851 enhancement governed, reasoning that arbitrary and uneven application of § 851 across similarly situated defendants, together with Young’s individualized circumstances, made an enhanced mandatory-minimum sentence greater than necessary under § 3553(a).


United States v. Young, 960 F. Supp. 2d 881 (N.D. Iowa 2013)