Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01335/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01335-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karvis Carter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-1335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KARVIS CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 12 CR 705-1 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED JULY 6, 2016 — DECIDED JULY 19, 2016

____________________

Before POSNER, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

SYKES, Circuit Judge. Karvis Carter pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1). Over Carter’s objection the sentencing judge 

applied a six-level upward adjustment to his total offense 

level under the Sentencing Guidelines based on a finding 

that he had assaulted police officers while attempting to flee 

an arrest. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(1). On appeal Carter renews 

his objection to the application of § 3A1.2(c)(1), arguing that 

Case: 15-1335 Document: 58 Filed: 07/19/2016 Pages: 7
2 No. 15-1335

the judge failed to make a specific finding about whether his 

conduct during the struggle was serious enough to pose “a 

substantial risk of serious bodily injury” to the officers, as 

required by § 3A1.2(c)(1). We affirm. 

I. Background

Police officers from the Chicago Police Department’s 

gang-investigations section observed Carter purchase cocaine from a known drug dealer on a residential street on the 

west side of Chicago. As Carter drove away from the exchange, Officers Jason Brown and George Lopez followed 

him in an unmarked squad car. As soon as the officers 

pulled behind Carter, he sped up. The officers activated their 

emergency lights and siren, and a high-speed chase ensued. 

Carter wove through traffic, blew through stop signs, and 

clocked 80 miles per hour speeding through residential 

streets and alleyways. He narrowly missed hitting a child on 

a bicycle and drove over a sidewalk scattering pedestrians. 

The chase eventually halted when Carter lost control of the 

car and slammed into a curb. He attempted to flee on foot 

but was caught by the officers. A brief struggle ensued 

before the officers wrestled Carter to the ground and handcuffed him. Both officers sustained minor injuries during the 

scuffle.

At sentencing Carter and Officer Brown told different 

versions of the struggle. According to Officer Brown, Carter 

hit Officer Lopez on the top of his head, knocking him to the 

ground, and then turned and punched him (Officer Brown) 

in the jaw. Both officers then wrestled Carter to the ground. 

From a sheath on his waist, Carter pulled out a folding knife. 

The officers knocked the knife out of his hand before he 

could unfold it. Only then, said Officer Brown, were they 

Case: 15-1335 Document: 58 Filed: 07/19/2016 Pages: 7
No. 15-1335 3

able to put Carter in handcuffs. Carter conceded only that he 

struggled with the officers and that he had a knife on his 

belt. He denied hitting the officers or unsheathing the knife. 

Based on a review of the police reports and interviews 

with both Carter’s attorney and Officer Brown, the probation 

officer credited Brown’s version of events and concluded 

that both the punches and the unsheathing of the knife 

created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to the 

officers. Carter’s presentence report thus recommended a 

six-level upward adjustment under § 3A1.2(c)(1). Carter 

objected.

After hearing the opposing testimony from Carter and 

Officer Brown, the judge concluded that they both had a 

“credible demeanor.” To determine “which one’s story is 

more likely true,” she looked at photographs of the officers’ 

injuries taken on the day of the arrest. The photographs of 

Officer Brown, the judge observed, showed an abrasion on 

his lower leg, which suggested that he “really was involved 

in some kind of a tussle.” But the judge saw no indication 

that Officer Brown had been struck in the chin, as he had 

testified. The photograph of Officer Lopez, on the other 

hand, showed a “mild but noticeable injury to the upper 

right portion of [his] head,” which, the judge said, corroborated Officer Brown’s testimony that Carter hit Officer Lopez 

in the head. The judge concluded that the injuries were 

consistent with Officer Brown’s testimony.

The judge then turned to the question whether to apply 

the upward adjustment specified in § 3A1.2(c)(1). After 

reciting the language of the guideline,1 the judge said that 

 1 Section 3A1.2(c)(1) provides:

Case: 15-1335 Document: 58 Filed: 07/19/2016 Pages: 7
4 No. 15-1335

she was “a little bit puzzled.” As she put it, “what happened 

after the vehicle was stopped is troubling but not alarming[,] ... not, I suspect, truly extraordinary,” and by comparison the high-speed chase was “much more serious,” even if 

it resulted in only a two-point upward adjustment under 

§ 3C1.2. Although the judge apparently thought the six-level 

increase in § 3A1.2(c)(1) overstated the seriousness of the 

scuffle, she said that she was inclined to adopt the findings 

of the probation officer:

I do think Mr. Carter was struggling enough 

that the officers were injured, at least mildly, at 

the time of the arrest. But I personally don’t 

think that that conduct is so serious that it generates -- that it supports a six-level increase. 

But I think that that’s for me to consider as a 

3553(a) factor as opposed to a calculation, because I think what I am supposed to do at sentencing first is do the calculations under the 

guidelines. And I think under the guidelines, 

the probation officer’s findings are supportable. 

Defense counsel then questioned whether the judge had 

found that Carter’s conduct was serious enough that it 

created a “substantial risk of ... serious bodily harm.” The 

 

If, in a manner creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, the defendant or a person for whose conduct 

the defendant is otherwise accountable ... knowing or 

having reasonable cause to believe that a person was a 

law enforcement officer, assaulted such officer during 

the course of the offense or immediate flight therefrom ... increase by 6 levels. 

Case: 15-1335 Document: 58 Filed: 07/19/2016 Pages: 7
No. 15-1335 5

judge said she was “looking at it again.” The prosecutor 

advised the court that “[t]here is some case law” on point—

presumably a reference to United States v. Alexander, 712 F.3d 

977, 979 (7th Cir. 2013), which holds that a single blow to the 

head carries with it the risk of serious bodily harm. In addition, the prosecutor continued, the unsheathing of the knife 

was sufficient, on its own, to support the upward adjustment.

The judge responded that she was not willing to base the 

upward adjustment in § 3A1.2(c)(1) on a finding that Carter 

had unsheathed the knife because she “did find both witnesses credible.” And unlike the injuries to the officers, 

which were visible in the photographs, there was no evidence corroborating Officer Brown’s testimony that Carter 

had pulled the knife. The prosecutor then interjected, as he

had done moments earlier, that “the case law is clear[] that 

simply punching an officer [in the head], which clearly 

happened here, would support this six-level adjustment.” 

The judge ultimately accepted that argument. She adopted

the probation officer’s findings, not based on the knife but 

rather based “on the law,” which, she said, the government 

had “correctly summarized by saying that even a punch or 

two punches to an officer qualifies.”

Applying the six-level upward adjustment, the judge calculated a guidelines range of 135 to 168 months based on a 

total offense level of 33 and a criminal history category of I, 

and imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 120 months in 

prison followed by four years of supervised release.

Case: 15-1335 Document: 58 Filed: 07/19/2016 Pages: 7
6 No. 15-1335

II. Analysis

On appeal Carter argues that the judge erred in applying 

the upward adjustment in § 3A1.2(c)(1) without explicitly 

finding that he had created a substantial risk of serious 

bodily injury to the officers. Although Carter concedes that a 

single blow to the head can be enough to pose a substantial 

risk of serious bodily injury, he argues that the judge was 

required to make an explicit finding that his actions posed 

such a risk given the specific circumstances of this case. 

See Alexander, 712 F.3d at 979 (“Applying the Guideline 

standard to the specific circumstances of a case is the responsibility of the district judge.”). Simply adopting the 

findings of the probation officer, he continues, is not enough 

to support the adjustment where, as here, the judge made 

several comments that conflict with those findings. In particular, Carter points out that the judge said that she did not 

think the “scuffle” was very serious or out of the ordinary, 

and at one point even stated that his conduct was not “so 

serious that it ... support[ed] a six-level increase.” The 

judge’s reservations, Carter says, cannot be reconciled with 

her decision to apply the enhancement.

But the judge was permitted to adopt the probation officer’s findings from the presentence report, including the 

finding that the blow to the head sustained by Officer Lopez 

created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. Although 

the judge’s remarks could have been clearer, we’re satisfied 

that she understood the legal standard for imposing the 

adjustment. After all, she read aloud from the text of the 

guideline, and when defense counsel reminded her that she 

must find that Carter’s actions created a substantial risk of 

serious bodily injury, she acknowledged counsel’s arguCase: 15-1335 Document: 58 Filed: 07/19/2016 Pages: 7
No. 15-1335 7

ment. She went on to conclude that the evidence in the 

record—including Officer Brown’s testimony about the 

blows to the head and the photographs of the officers’ 

injuries—supported the probation officer’s finding. See id.

(“Even one blow to the head, and even by an unarmed 

person, can pose a substantial risk of serious injury within 

the meaning of the Guidelines.”). Nothing more was required.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-1335 Document: 58 Filed: 07/19/2016 Pages: 7