Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03351/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03351-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clara Sophie Loefer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3351

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota.

Clara Sophie Loefer, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 6, 2007

Filed: February 12, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Clara Sophie Loefer (Loefer) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B) and 846. Calculating an advisory Guidelines sentencing range of 78 to 97

months’ imprisonment, the district court1

 imposed a sentence of 87 months’

imprisonment, rather than the statutory minimum, a term of 60 months’ imprisonment.

Loefer argues that in setting her sentence, the district court relied on “erroneous facts”

Appellate Case: 05-3351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2007 Entry ID: 3277674
2

See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.2 (defendant’s refusal to assist authorities in investigation

of others may not be considered as aggravating sentencing factor). 

-2-

about Loefer’s leadership, recruitment, or involvement in the conspiracy and relied

on an impermissible factor by referring to her failure to cooperate. 

Loefer’s argument regarding the district court’s factual findings is without

merit. Loefer never objected to the presentence investigation report’s (PSR)

application of the role enhancement or its factual statements that the drugs were

primarily sold out of Loefer’s house and Loefer had “some control” over members of

the conspiracy by directing the sale of the drugs. Thus, the district court’s factual

findings regarding Loefer’s leadership role were not clearly erroneous. See United

States v. Rouillard, No. 06-1857, 2007 WL 188308, at *1 n.1 (8th Cir. 2007)

(accepting as true any unobjected to facts set forth in the PSR).

Additionally, the district court did not rely on an impermissible factor–Loefer’s

failure to cooperate2

–to sentence her in the middle of the Guidelines range. The

record indicates the court referred to Loefer’s failure to cooperate in order to respond

to her sentencing disparity concerns. In so doing, the court reasoned (1) Loefer had

a leadership role in the conspiracy, (2) the defendants who cooperated received

reduced sentences based on their cooperation, and (3) Loefer had not cooperated.

There is no sentencing disparity when a more culpable co-conspirator receives a

harsher sentence. See United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 876, 880 (8th Cir. 2006).

Therefore, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2007 Entry ID: 3277674