Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03197/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03197-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas J. Ludwig
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

THOMAS J. LUDWIG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES P. LUDWIG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 90-3197 

(D.C. No. 90-20004-02) 

(D. Kan.) 

No. 90-3198 

(D.C. No. 90-20004-01) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

Defendants, father and son, appeal sentences imposed after 

acceptance of their guilty pleas to transferring a machine gun in 

violation of 26 u.s.c. §§ 5861(e) and 5871. James Ludwig was 

sentenced to thirteen months' imprisonment. 

sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Both 

Thomas Ludwig was 

terms are to be 

followed by three years' supervised release. Defendants began 

their terms of imprisonment July 9, 1990. 

On appeal, defendants argue that the government breached its 

plea bargain, the district court failed to make findings regarding 

alleged factual inaccuracies in defendants' presentence 

investigation reports (PSI), 

denied both defendants' request 

responsibility reduction and 

and the district court erroneously 

for a two-level acceptance of 

Thomas Ludwig's request for a 

four-level reduction for a minimal role in the offense. 

Defendants' plea bargain provided that the government would 

not oppose defendants' request for an acceptance of responsibility 

reduction or Thomas Ludwig's request for a minimal participant 

reduction. Defendants argue that the government failed to keep 

this part of the plea bargain by opposing these requests (1) in 

the presentence reports, (2) at sentencing by actively eliciting 

adverse testimony from the probation officer, (3) by permitting 

the probation officer to obtain adverse information from the 

government's file for use in the presentence reports, and (4) by 

its position on this appeal. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 2 
If the government obtains a guilty plea based in any 

significant way on a promise with the prosecuting attorney, that 

promise must be fulfilled in order to maintain the integrity of 

the plea bargain. United States v. Hand, 913 F.2d 854, , No. 

89-3275, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. September 7, 1990). We construe 

a plea agreement according to what the defendant "reasonably 

understood" when he entered the plea. Id. However, a promise to 

not oppose a defendant's request is not a promise to stand mute in 

the face of incorrect or misleading testimony offered to the trial 

court. See id. at 5; see also United States v. Stemm, 847 F.2d 

636, 639 (10th Cir. 1988)("Disclosure of information as to the 

nature of the offense and each defendant's role is proper and 

within the Government's duty to provide, despite a promise that 

the Government would make no recommendation as to sentence."). 

Further, "a sentencing court must be permitted to consider any and 

all information that reasonably might bear on the proper 

sentence." Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559, 563 (1984). 

Here, the government properly opened 

probation officer. It could not restrict the 

this information. At sentencing, the 

its files to the 

court's access to 

government properly 

presented facts to the court. It did not oppose defendants' 

requests. No error occurred. 

Defendants argue that the district court failed to make 

findings concerning alleged factual inaccuracies in their PSis. 

When a criminal defendant challenges factual information in the 

presentence report, Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D) requires the 

court to either "(i) make a factual finding regarding the accuracy 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 3 
' 

of the information, or (ii) expressly state that it is not relying 

on the disputed information. The essence of the defendant's 

challenge and the district court's findings must then be reduced 

to writing and appended to the defendant's presentence report, 

which will follow him through the corrections system." United 

States v. Alvarado, 909 F.2d 1443, 1444 (10th Cir. 1990)(citing 

United States v. Strayer, 846 F.2d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988)). 

Defendants asserted nine factual inaccuracies in their PSis: 

1. The reports misrepresented the government's position at 

the presentence conference. 

2. 

3. 

The reports misrepresented 

opinion of probation officers. 

The reports falsely implied 

defendants' counsel's 

that defendants had 

continued their firearms business with the aid of other 

family members. 

4. The report's list of James Ludwig's military honors and 

awards was incomplete and inaccurate. 

5. The report falsely stated that other criminal 

proceedings concerning James Ludwig were still active. 

6. The report falsely reported that a prior military 

proceeding involving James Ludwig involved the use of a 

firearm. 

7. The reports falsely stated that it was impossible to 

calculate defendants' net worth because they submitted 

incomplete financial information. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 4 
' 

8. The recommendation that defendants not be granted an 

acceptance of responsibility reduction was contrary to 

the facts and law. 

9. The recommendation that Thomas Ludwig be denied the 

four-level reduction for a minimal role in the offense 

was contrary to the facts and law. 

The district court found that the presentence reports were 

accurate. Record, Vol. IV at 29, 33. However, this determination 

was not written and attached to the reports. Because the court 

failed to attach its written determination to the presentence 

reports, "the proper remedy is merely to remand for attachment of 

the proper record." United States v. Gattas, 862 F.2d 1432, 1435 

(10th Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 

1566 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, S. Ct. , 1990 WL 66991 

(October 1, 1990). Resentencing is not required. See United 

States v. Wach, 907 F.2d 1038, 1041 (10th Cir. 1990)(if the record 

reveals that the sentencing judge may have relied upon disputed 

facts in the PSI without first making a finding regarding those 

facts, resentencing is the appropriate remedy)(citing to Gattas, 

862 F.2d at 1435). 

Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying 

their requests for a two-level acceptance of responsibility 

reduction. The Sentencing Guidelines permit such a reduction in a 

defendant's offense level "if the defendant clearly demonstrates a 

recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility 

for his criminal conduct." United States Sentencing Commission, 

Guidelines Manual, (U.S.S.G.) § 3El.l (Nov. 1989). The sentencing 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 5 
court's determination with respect to defendants' acceptance of 

responsibility "is entitled to great deference on review and 

should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation." 

u.s.s.G. § 3El.1 comment (n.5) at 3.24 (Nov. 1989); see also 

United States v. Pelayo-Munoz, 905 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1990). 

"Whether a defendant should be granted a two-level adjustment 

for acceptance of responsibility depends upon whether the 

defendant 'clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative 

acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.'" 

u.s.s.G. § 3El.l(a). The burden of proof is on the defendant and 

the quantum of proof is a preponderance of evidence." United 

States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 712 (10th Cir. 1990)(citations 

omitted). The district court held: 

Well, I'm going to adopt the Probation Office's 

position and find that defendants are not entitled to a 

two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

The--it appears that there's some suggestion, and I find 

that the defendant may not actually have completely 

gotten out of the gun business, according to the 

presentence report. His wife continues to maintain a 

firearms license and to engage in the business. And 

it's been commented here this morning by counsel for 

defendant that she's an invalid. If she is, it would 

seem to me that the defendant James Ludwig must continue 

to have some participation in the business. 

In any event, from all the circumstances outlined 

in the presentence report and the addendum, it is my 

finding that the two-level reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility for either defendant will be denied. 

Sentencing Tr. at 23-24. 

The evidence supports the district court's findings that 

defendants failed to provide all financial records requested. By 

failing to turn over all business records, defendants further 

demonstrated their failure to voluntarily terminate or withdraw 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 6 
from their firearms business. Defendants have failed to meet 

their burdens of district court's denial of a 

two-level reduction 

clearly erroneous. 

proof. 

for 

The 

acceptance of responsibility is not 

Defendant, Thomas Ludwig, argues that the district court 

erred in denying his request for a four-level reduction for a 

minimal role. A defendant shall be granted a four-level reduction 

for a minimal role in the offense if he demonstrates a "lack of 

knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the 

enterprise and of the activities of others." u.s.s.G. § B1.2, 

Commentary Application Note 1. "It is intended that the downward 

adjustment for a minimal participant will be used infrequently." 

Id. at §B1.2, Commentary Application Note 2. 

We review the district court's finding of level of 

participation under a clearly erroneous standard. United States 

v. Sanchez, 914 F.2d 208, __ , No. 89-2118, slip op. at 3 (10th 

Cir. September 11, 1990). We will reverse such a finding only if 

it is "without factual support in the record or if, after 

reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm 

conviction that the finding was erroneous." United States v. 

Alvarez, 914 F.2d 215, __ , No. 89-6221, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. 

September 13, 1990). As with the acceptance of responsibility 

reduction, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he 

is entitled to such an adjustment. Id. 

The evidence showed that Thomas Ludwig showed the buyer how 

to assemble the machine gun outside the gun shop and later took 

the purchase money to a bank where he exchanged it for smaller 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 7 
. . 

denomination bills. The evidence in the record supports the 

district court's conclusion. 

The judgments of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas are AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED for the 

ministerial task of affixing written comments regarding the 

district court's resolution of disputed facts to the presentence 

investigation reports. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-3197 Document: 010110047858 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 8