Life Sentencing Beyond the Guidelines for Second-Degree Murder in Indian Country: Clarifying the Role of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in United States v. Washington

Introduction

United States v. Washington, 24-7042 (10th Cir. June 6, 2025), addresses the scope of a district court’s authority to impose an upward variance—here, a life sentence—beyond the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range in a second-degree murder case occurring in Indian Country. The defendant, Tanner Dean Washington, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1151 and 1152 after the disappearance and presumed homicide of his 17-year-old girlfriend, F.L. The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months but granted the Government’s motion for an upward variance to life imprisonment. On appeal, Washington contended that the life term was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Tenth Circuit affirmed, elaborating the standards governing “major variances” and the deference owed to district courts in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit held by a unanimous panel that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a life sentence. The court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to review substantive reasonableness and emphasized:

No presumption of unreasonableness attaches to a sentence outside the Guidelines range.
Major variances “should have a more significant justification” than minor ones (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007)).
The district court provided a “holistic inquiry” into all § 3553(a) factors, detailing why the seriousness of the offense, the concealment of the victim’s body, the defendant’s recantation and obstruction, his domestic‐violence history, and the need to protect society outweighed mitigating factors.
Appellant’s arguments—overstated criminal history, insufficient credit for acceptance of responsibility, under-weighing of psychological evaluation, and alleged sentencing disparity—amounted to a request to reweigh factors, which is not permitted on appeal.

The court concluded the life sentence was substantively reasonable and affirmed the judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Established that a district court has broad discretion to vary upward or downward from the advisory Guidelines range. Major variances require “significant justification.”
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996): Recognized the district court’s superior position to weigh sentencing factors and make credibility determinations.
United States v. Halliday, 665 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2011): Defined substantive reasonableness review and reiterated the abuse-of-discretion standard.
United States v. Cookson, 922 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2019): Explained that “nearly exclusive focus” on a single § 3553(a) factor can render a variance unreasonable if other factors are ignored.
United States v. Lente, 759 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2014): Confirmed the need for “more significant justification” for a major variance.
United States v. Livingston, No. 21-2108, 2022 WL 15570654 (10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2022) (unpublished): Upheld a 240-month variance in a second-degree murder case based on the heinous nature of domestic violence and the defendant’s history.
United States v. Lucero, 130 F.4th 877 (10th Cir. 2025): Deferred to the district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors in imposing a substantial variance for violent recidivism.

Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review: Substantive reasonableness is reviewed for abuse of discretion, without any presumption of unreasonableness for sentences above the Guidelines. The district court’s findings on fact and weight given to each factor are entitled to deference.

2. Major Variance Justification: The Guidelines range (188–235 months) vs. life imprisonment constitutes a major variance requiring a “significant justification.” The district court explained:

The extraordinary and tragic nature of the offense (murder of a minor, failure to disclose the body’s location, misuse of the victim’s phone to conceal the crime).
Defendant’s history of domestic violence and obstruction of justice.
Need to “protect the public” from a “dangerous person.”
General and specific deterrence, just punishment, and respect for the law.

3. Rejection of Appellant’s Arguments:

Overstatement of criminal history—court adequately considered his prior convictions and probationary sentences.
Credit for acceptance of responsibility—court noted the guilty plea but found aggravating factors outweighed the three-point reduction.
Psychological evaluation—court considered mental health struggles but balanced them against the need for public safety.
Sentencing disparity—without comparators showing similarly situated defendants, national statistics alone cannot establish an unwarranted disparity.

Impact

United States v. Washington reinforces several key principles for federal sentencing:

District courts retain broad discretion to impose substantial upward variances when aggravating conduct places a case outside the “heartland” of typical offenses.
Major variances require detailed § 3553(a) analysis but need not give equal weight to every factor.
Appellate review will not second-guess the balance struck by a district court unless the reasoning is arbitrary, capricious, or omits significant factors.
Reliance on national sentencing statistics to claim unwarranted disparity must be supported by evidence that comparators are similarly situated in both offense conduct and criminal history.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantive Reasonableness: Whether the length of the sentence makes sense given all the factors Congress says courts must consider (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
Advisory Guidelines: A recommended sentence range based on offense level and criminal history; no longer mandatory but provides a starting point and benchmark.
Upward Variance: A sentence longer than the Guidelines range, justified by unique or aggravated circumstances.
Major vs. Minor Variance: A “major” variance (large difference) demands more extensive explanation than a “minor” variance (small difference).
Abuse of Discretion: Appellate courts will defer to the district court’s decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Conclusion

United States v. Washington clarifies how district courts in the Tenth Circuit may lawfully impose significant upward variances from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines in exceptionally aggravated cases. By detailing its § 3553(a) analysis—balancing deterrence, justice, public protection, and the defendant’s background—the district court provided the “significant justification” required for a life sentence well above the 188–235 month range. The Tenth Circuit’s affirmance underscores that courts should not reweigh a properly supported variance on appeal and that defendants must produce concrete comparators to challenge unwarranted disparities. This decision will serve as persuasive authority for sentencing federal defendants whose crimes fall far outside the ordinary “heartland” of guideline calculations.