Case Explained: United States v. Garley

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 1:23-CR-01485-WJ-1) The Tenth Circuit affirmed Nathen Garley’s 240-month federal prison sentence, which was imposed consecutively to an anticipated state murder sentence. The court rejected Garley’s challenges regarding both procedural and substantive reasonableness. Regarding the procedural challenge, the court held that Garley failed to demonstrate plain error in the district court’s refusal to apply U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c), which mandates concurrent sentences when a state term of imprisonment is anticipated for “relevant conduct.” The appellate court found no clear or obvious error because the district court correctly treated Garley’s state murder conviction as criminal history under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(4) rather than as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3. The court reasoned that the state offenses were not sufficiently related to the federal fentanyl offense to qualify as relevant conduct, noting they involved different crimes (murder versus drug distribution) without a common scheme or plan, and thus did not meet the “similarity” or “regularity” factors required for such a determination. Regarding the substantive challenge, the court found the 100% upward variance from the advisory Guidelines range of 120 to 135 months was reasonable under an abuse of discretion standard. The district court provided a cogent explanation based on the totality of circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), specifically citing the dangerousness of fentanyl, the “illogical” treatment of fentanyl compared to methamphetamine in the Guidelines, and Garley’s “serious crime spree” involving the murder of an 11-year-old boy just one week prior to his federal arrest. The appellate court declined to reweigh these factors, concluding the district court’s decision fell within the realm of rationally available choices. As a result of this decision, Garley’s sentence of 240 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release remains in effect and must be served consecutively to his state sentence. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.