Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01333/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01333-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lynn Warren Tjaden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1333

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Lynn Warren Tjaden, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 17, 2006

Filed: January 16, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Lynn Tjaden pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1344. The district court1

 denied Tjaden's request for an acceptance-of-responsibility

reduction and sentenced him to 72 months' imprisonment, an upward departure from

the Guidelines sentencing range of 41 to 51 months. Tjaden argues that the district

court erred by not granting his request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction

and by departing upward. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-1333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2007 Entry ID: 3267738
-2-

I. Background

As part of Tjaden's plea agreement, the government agreed to recommend a

three-level reduction in the adjusted offense level for acceptance of responsibility, as

authorized by U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The plea agreement explicitly mandated that Tjaden

not commit any additional acts that were inconsistent with his acceptance of

responsibility.

Tjaden acknowledged his wrongful conduct in a check-kiting scheme. In an

effort to demonstrate his acceptance of responsibility, Tjaden began to incrementally

repay the bank victimized by his fraud. However, the government discovered that

Tjaden financed his repayments with proceeds from a new fraud scheme. Based upon

Tjaden's new fraudulent activities, the government withdrew its acceptance-ofresponsibility recommendation. Before sentencing, the district court provided the

parties with proper notice that it was considering departing upward.

At sentencing, the government provided documentary evidence and testimony

supporting its allegation that Tjaden continued to commit fraudulent acts. Tjaden did

not testify but argued through counsel that he had received the proceeds in question

from several local businesses and farmers from the sale of farm equipment and a

farming website. The district court rejected Tjaden's explanation, departed upward

from the Sentencing Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months, and sentenced Tjaden to 72

months' imprisonment based upon the government's proof that Tjaden continued to

"engage in . . . wrongful activity." 

On appeal, Tjaden contends that the district court committed reversible error by

1) refusing to reduce his sentence in light of his acceptance of responsibility; and 2)

imposing a 21-month upward departure.

Appellate Case: 06-1333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2007 Entry ID: 3267738
-3-

II. Discussion

We review the district court's application of the Guidelines de novo and its

factual findings for clear error. United States v. Webb, 214 F.3d 962, 964 (8th Cir.

2000). We review the ultimate sentence for reasonableness, which is akin to the

abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Medearis, 451 F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir.

2006). "A sentencing court may act unreasonably if it fails to consider a matter of

relative importance, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant matter, or

arrives at a sentence outside of the range justified by the facts of the case." Id.

A. Acceptance of Responsibility

A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to a sentence adjustment as

a matter of right. United States v. Morris, 139 F.3d 582, 584 (8th Cir.1998). A

defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to a downward adjustment for

the acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968 (8th Cir.

1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1056 (1999). "Whether to grant a reduction for

acceptance of responsibility is a factual determination which depends largely on the

district court's credibility assessments." United States v. McQuay, 7 F.3d 800, 801 (8th

Cir.1993). "This court gives great deference to a district court's refusal to grant a

reduction for acceptance of responsibility and will reverse only for clear error." Id. 

The district court heard evidence from federal agents who testified that Tjaden

had resumed fraudulent activities, as well as from individuals to whom Tjaden made

false statements. The government also produced financial records, e-mails, and

business letters to support this allegation. Tjaden maintains that this same evidence

also shows that he was engaged in the legitimate sale of farm equipment and a farming

website. He notes that several of the documents produced by the government show

that he had begun these dealings before his original guilty plea.

We cannot say that the district court's decision was clearly erroneous. The

government's evidence, if believed, established that Tjaden had not ceased

Appellate Case: 06-1333 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2007 Entry ID: 3267738
-4-

wrongdoing as required by the plea agreement. Tjaden neither offered evidence

refuting the government's allegation, nor produced any evidence to support his

contention that he was merely engaging in the legal sale of farm equipment and a

farming website. 

Based upon the court's findings, the denial of Tjaden's acceptance-ofresponsibility request was appropriate, if not required. See United States v. Nguyen,

52 F.3d 192, 194 (8th Cir. 1995) ("We have difficulty imagining any behavior more

inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility than the commission of the same type

of offense while on bond."). 

B. Upward Departure

"We review de novo whether the district court based its departure on a

permissible factor, review the factual findings supporting the departure for clear error,

and review the reasonableness of the departure for abuse of discretion." United States

v. Smith, 367 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 2004). The district court based its departure upon

a permissible factor—Tjaden's extensive fraudulent activities and criminal history.

U.S.S.G. §§ 2B1.1 cmt. n.19, 4A1.3(a)(1), and 5K2.0.

For reversal, Tjaden offers no additional basis than that raised in his argument

for acceptance of responsibility. He merely reiterates his argument that the district

court's findings at sentencing were clearly erroneous. We have already affirmed those

findings. Based upon this record, we cannot say that the sentence is unreasonable.

III. Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the district court's judgment denying a

reduction for acceptance of responsibility and departing upward.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1333 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/16/2007 Entry ID: 3267738