Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02281/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02281-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Patrick Rowen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

'• 

PUBLISH F.I LED 

Valled Statet COIU'I of Appeab 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff ~ Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES PATRICK ROWEN, 

Defendant· - Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JAN 1 7 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 93-2281 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CR-93-121-LH) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

John J. Kelly, United States Attorney for the District of New 

Mexico, Tara C. Neda, Assistant United States Attorney for the 

District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Appellee. 

Adam G. Kurtz, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Appellant. 

fore TACHA, LOGAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34.(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In July, 1993 a jury convicted James Patrick Rowen of 

possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 u.s.c. §§ 

5845(a) (4) and 5861(d). At sentencing, the district court did not 

Appellate Case: 93-2281 Document: 01019280385 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 1 
assent to Rowen's request for downward departure from the 

applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines range. In 

addition, the district court enhanced Rowen's offense level for 

obstruction of justice pursuant to USSG § 3C1.1. Rowen now 

appeals, arguing (1) that this court has jurisdiction to review 

his sentence because the district judge failed to consider his 

motion for downward departure; (2) that a downward departure was 

warranted; and (3) that the district court erred in enhancing his 

sentence level for obstruction of justice. We exercise 

jurisdiction pursuant to 18 u.s.c. § 3742(a) (1) and 28 u.s.c. § 

1291, and affirm. 

In March of 1992, Drug Enforcement Administration agents 

executed a search warrant for Rowen's trailer in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, and found eight guns. One of the weapons· was a Pietta 

Cat, Bingham PSI 50/.22 caliber rifle, with an overall length of 

24 15/16 inches. The stock of this rifle had been shortened. 

Under 26 u.s.c. §§ 5845(a) (4) and 5861(d), any rifle shorter than 

26 inches must be registered in the National Firearms Registration 

and Transfer Record. A search of the Record revealed that the 

Bingham rifle was not registered. Rowen was then indicted and 

tried for possession of an unregistered firearm. After the jury 

failed to reach a verdict, the court declared a mistrial. 

Rowen was then retried and convicted. At the second trial, 

Rowen stated that he did not own the Bingham rifle. However, on 

cross-examination, he admitted that before he ·was charged he had 

confessed to owning all the guns found in the trailer. Kimberly 

Martinez, Rowen's live-in girlfriend, initially testified that 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 93-2281 Document: 01019280385 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 2 
Kathy Izat, Rowen's ex-girlfriend, owned the Bingham rifle, and 

that Izat had placed it in the trailer without Rowen's knowledge. 

However, Martinez later admitted that before she learned that 

Rowen would be charged, she had testified that all of the guns 

found in the trailer belonged to Rowen. Izat testified that Rowen 

owned the Bingham rifle, and that Rowen had told her that he would 

say the rifle belonged to her because "the story would be better.n 

At the sentencing hearing, Rowen contended that his case 

warranted a downward departure because: (1) the rifle was only 1 

1/16 inches shorter than the length required by law, too long to 

be concealed and not so noticeably short that a person of ordinary 

intelligence would believe that possession of such a weapon would 

be illegal; (2) the rifle had never been used in criminal 

activity, nor was Rowen the person who shortened the stock; (3) 

although intent to possess an unregistered gun is not an element 

of the offense, the fact that he did not intend to do so should be 

considered; and (4) incarceration would not satisfy the goals of 

rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence. In addition, Rowen 

objected to the conclusion in the presentence report that Rowen 

obstructed justice by falsely tes.tifying at trial. 

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court concluded 

that Rowen had obstructed justice by falsely testifying at trial 

and enhanced his offence level in accordance with USSG § 3C1.1. 

The court determined that the Gu:ldeline imprisonment range 

applicable to Rowen was 33 to 41 months, and sentenced him to 33 

months. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 93-2281 Document: 01019280385 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 3 
Rowen contends that the district court erroneously concluded 

that it did not have discretionary authority to depart from the 

Sentencing Guidelines. We have jurisdiction to review a district 

court's refusal to depart downward only when "the district court 

refused to depart because it erroneously interpreted the 

Guidelines as depriving it of the power to depart based on the 

proffered circumstances . . . " United States x. Barrera-Barron, 

996 F. 2d 244, 245 (10th Cir.) , cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 358 

(1993). "However, if the district court interpreted the 

Guidelines as authorizing departure, but nonetheless chose not to 

depart, then we would have no juri~diction to review this 

discretionary decision," Id. 

In this case, the district court never made an explicit 

ruling on the motion to depart downward. In sentencing Rowen, the 

court stated: 

I have heard the testimony in the cases, both cases ... . I have heard the testimony of the prosecution witness, 

Kathy Izat. You have asserted that she is a convicted felon. 

I don't have any information as to whether or not that felony 

would be a felony that should be taken into consideration 

with respect to her credibility, and so I am not involving 

myself in the evaluation of whether or not that felony should 

be -- should affect her credibility. The jury heard her 

testimony. The jury accepted her testimony. I heard all of 

the other witnesses, the defense witnesses, including the 

defendant, and the testimony of his girlfriend. 

And I conclude, as did the probation office, that there 

was a representation by the defendant of ownership of the 

guns and that he had -- also had possession of this gun for a 

period of -- a number of years. And based upon the testimony 

of those witnesses that I have mentioned, I conclude as did 

the probation office, that the defendant obstructed justice 

under the circumstances, which would require increasing his 

offense level to two levels for obstruction of justice. 

- 4 • 

Appellate Case: 93-2281 Document: 01019280385 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 4 
The judge's failure to mention his discretion to depart 

downward does not imply a lack of understanding of tha·t 

discretion. We do not assume that silence indicates ignorance: 

We think that 11 the district courts have become more 

experienced in applying the Guidelines and more familiar with 

their power to make discretionary departure decisions under 

the Guidelines . ., Barrerg.-Barron, 996 F.2d at 246. 

Accordingly, unless the judge's language unambiguously states 

that he does not believe he has authority to downward depart 1 

we will not review his decision. 

united States v. Rodriguez, 30 F.3d 1318, 1319 (lOth Cir. 1994). 

This issue has also been considered by the Ninth Circuit in Unit~d 

States v. Garcia-Garcia, 927 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1991). In that 

case, the Ninth Circuit held, as we now hold, that "[f]ailure to 

depart without comment on the authority to do so does not convert 

a discretionary departure into a sentence imposed in violation of 

law.n .Id.:.. at 491; ~also United States v 1 Bailey, 975 F.2d 

1028, 1035 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that the appellate court will 

assume that a district judge knows she has discretion to depart 

downward, even when the district judge does not explicitly 

acknowledge her discretion) . 

In this case, nothing in the district court's statement at 

sentencing suggests unawareness of its discretion to depart 

downward. Moreover, the court sentenced Rowen immediately after 

hearing extensive oral argument on the downward departure motion. 

We conclude that the court was aware of its discretionary 

authority; therefore, we lack jurisdiction over Rowen's appeal of 

the denial of his motion. 

Rowen also urges this court to remand his case for 

resentencing because the district court erred in enhancing his 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 93-2281 Document: 01019280385 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 5 
sentence for obstruction of justice. He argues that the court's 

findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the enhancement 

were not supported by the record. We review the trial court's 

findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Yost, 24 F.3d 

99, 106 (lOth Cir. 1994), opinion after remand, 45 F.3d 440 

(1994) , The United States Sentencing Guidelines require the 

sentencing court to increase the offense level by two levels 11 [i]f 

the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to 

obstruct or impede, ,the administration of justice during the 

investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.'' 

USSG § 3Cl.l. Such an enhancement is warranted for 11 Committing, 

suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury. n USSG § 3C1.1, 

comment. (n.3(b)), To enhance a defendant's sentence for perjury 

under § 3C1.1, the district court must specifically find that the 

defendant Committed perjury. Id. 

The record in this case amply supports the trial judge's 

conclusion that a sentence enhancement was warranted. Rowen 

testified under oath that he did not own the Bingham rifle. Yet 

he later admitted that before he was charged he had confessed to 

owning all the guns in the trailer. In addition, the testimony of 

Martinez and Izat supported the conclusion that Rowen had perjured 

himself at trial. At sentencing, the district court considered 

all of the testimony that was relevant to its dete~ination that 

Rowen had not been truthful and specifically fourid that Rowen had 

committed perjury. Thus we hold that the district court did not 

err in increasing Rowen's sentence for obstruction of justice. 

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 93-2281 Document: 01019280385 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 6 
Because we are satisfied that the district court was aware of 

its authority to depart downward, and because the enhancement of 

Rowen's sentence was not clearly erroneous, the sentencing 

decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

- 7 -

Appellate Case: 93-2281 Document: 01019280385 Date Filed: 01/17/1996 Page: 7