Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02133/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02133-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Left Hand Bull
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2133

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of South Dakota.

Patrick Left Hand Bull, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2006

Filed: December 28, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Patrick Left Hand Bull was indicted on one count of first-degree burglary, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and S.D. Codified Laws § 22-32-1, and one count of

assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 113(a)(3). He

pled guilty to burglary, and the assault charge was dismissed. The United States

Sentencing Guidelines recommend a sentence of 21 to 27 months for his Criminal

History Category (III) and offense level (14). At sentencing, the district court1

 made

Appellate Case: 06-2133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263427
-2-

an upward departure to Criminal History Category V, and sentenced Left Hand Bull

to 41 months (the high end of the new range). Left Hand Bull appeals.

Guideline departures are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v.

Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). The district court stated that the

original range under-represents Left Hand Bull's criminal history and the likelihood

that he would recidivate. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. The court cited his extensive criminal

history, as detailed in the Pre-Sentence Report. The PSR assigned criminal history

points for felony abusive sexual contact and assault. But Left Hand Bull did not

receive any criminal history points for seven misdemeanors, including: two

convictions for impersonation to deceive a law enforcement officer, three convictions

for passing bad checks, and two convictions for driving without a license. The PSR

also showed that two supervised release agreements were revoked because of his

violations. At sentencing, the court noted his disregard for court orders and overall

lack of respect for the law. The court also took into account that Left Hand Bull had

a number of warrants outstanding.

Left Hand Bull objected at the sentencing hearing to the court's consideration

of the outstanding warrants, and renews the objection on appeal. The Guidelines state,

"A prior arrest record itself shall not be considered for purposes of an upward

departure under this policy statement." U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(3). The government

responds that although an arrest record "standing alone" cannot justify an upward

departure, it may be considered along with other factors when "the PSR . . . provide[s]

specific facts underlying the arrests . . . ." See United States v. Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d

622, 628 (8th Cir. 2006).

To the extent the district court relied on Left Hand Bull's prior arrests, it was

a harmless error. See id. at 629. The PSR describes the conduct underlying these

arrests in varying degrees of detail. More importantly, the court primarily relied on

Left Hand Bull's extensive criminal history and supervised release violations. The

Appellate Case: 06-2133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263427
-3-

record supports the upward departure, without consideration of his arrest record or

warrants.

This district court also relied on the dismissed assault charge to support the

upward departure. Left Hand Bull argues that this deprives him of a benefit of his

plea bargain. To the contrary, section 5K2.21says, "The court may depart upward to

reflect the actual seriousness of the offense based on conduct (1) underlying a charge

dismissed as part of a plea agreement in the case . . . and (2) that did not enter into the

determination of the applicable guideline range." See, e.g., United States v. Mack,

452 F.3d 744, 746 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming section 5K2.21 upward departure for

dismissed conduct). The court was careful to warn Left Hand Bull of this possibility

at the change-of-plea hearing. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to

consider the dismissed assault charge.

Left Hand Bull generally invokes United States v. Cammisano, 917 F.2d 1057,

1063 n.2 (8th Cir. 1990), for the proposition: "the district court must compare the

seriousness of the defendant's criminal history with that of offenders in each higher

category and then select the category that most closely resembles the defendant's

history." The absence of an on-the-record comparison by the district court is not fatal;

the sentence will be upheld if the reviewing court is satisfied that the aggravating

circumstances actually existed and that the departure was reasonable. See United

States v. Thomas, 914 F.2d 139, 144 (8th Cir. 1990). Left Hand Bull overstates the

Cammisano footnote. See, e.g., United States v. Levi, 229 F.3d 677, 679 (8th Cir.

1995) (sentencing court is "not required to compare [a defendant] explicitly to other

offenders in that category before departing upward."); United States v. Day, 998 F.2d

622, 625 (8th Cir. 1993) ("Neither the text of § 4A1.3 nor our precedents require a

'ritualistic exercise in which [the sentencing court] mechanically discusses each

criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects.'").

Accordingly, the departure in this case is upheld.

Appellate Case: 06-2133 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263427
-4-

Left Hand Bull argues that the 41-month sentence is unreasonable. This

sentence is within the Guideline range and thus presumptively reasonable. United

States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005). This presumption may be

overcome if the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have

received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or otherwise committed a clear error of judgment. United States v. Haack, 403

F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). Relevant factors are

those in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (8th Cir.

2005). The standard of review is abuse of discretion. United States v. Dalton, 404

F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2005).

A district court need not "categorically rehearse each of the section 3553(a)

factors on the record when it imposes a sentence as long as it is clear that they were

considered." United States v. Dieken, 432 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2005). Here, the

court described Left Hand Bull as a "career criminal" with "little, if any, respect for

the law" and who "pays absolutely no attention to court orders." He assaulted the

victim with a dangerous weapon. These "circumstances of the offense" and

"characteristics of the defendant" are relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).

The court also predicted that Left Hand Bull would "continue to be involved in

criminal activities without a doubt." Thus, the sentence "protect[s] the public from

further crimes of the defendant" per 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). The district court

sufficiently considered the section 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Lewis, 436

F.3d 939, 946 (8th Cir. 2006) ("robotic incantation" is not required). There was no

abuse of discretion.

In United States v. Little Hawk, 449 F.3d 837, 841 (8th Cir. 2006), this court

held that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) requires a district court to state the reasons for the

sentence in the written judgment. Left Hand Bull contends that the court violated

Little Hawk by noting the reasons for the departure only in the non-public Statement

of Reasons. But "when the district court fails to provide its reasons as required, we

Appellate Case: 06-2133 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263427
-5-

affirm the sentence if we determine that the sentence is reasonable." Id. Here, while

the district court did not list section 3553(a) factors in its written judgment, the

reasons for the sentence were clearly articulated at sentencing. Given Left Hand

Bull's personal characteristics, the circumstances of the offense, and the need to

protect to public, the sentence was not unreasonable.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2133 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263427