Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03632/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Adonis Thompson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Clyde H. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3632

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District of

v. * Minnesota.

* 

Albert Adonis Thompson, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2004

Filed: May 20, 2004

___________

Before BYE, HAMILTON,1

 and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Albert Adonis Thompson pleaded guilty to manufacturing counterfeit

obligations of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471. At sentencing, the

district court2

 applied a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under United

States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 3C1.1 and denied Mr. Thompson’s motion

Appellate Case: 03-3632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769117 
3

The court sentenced Mr. Thompson at the low end of the range under Criminal

History Category I, offense level 14. Without the enhancement, the applicable range

would have been 10-16 months. Thus, the 15-month sentence was at most 5 months

longer than it would have been without the enhancement.

-2-

for a downward departure. Mr. Thompson appeals the district court's sentencing

decisions, and we affirm. 

I

On May 24, 2000, police officers in Lakeville, Minnesota, arrested Lindsay

Bauer after she attempted to make a fast-food purchase using a counterfeit $100 bill.

Ms. Bauer told the police she received the bill from her boyfriend, Albert Adonis

Thompson. Two days later, the United States Secret Service interviewed Mr.

Thompson at Lakeville High School, where he was an eighteen-year-old senior. In

a written statement, he admitted he had used his computer to produce as many as fifty

sheets containing three copies each of the bill and had sold about twenty-five sheets

to various people. He also volunteered he had destroyed the sheets remaining in his

possession and deleted images of the bill from his computer hard drive after learning

of Ms. Bauer's arrest. Agents who later searched Mr. Thompson's computers were

unable to recover the deleted files. 

In a three-count indictment, Mr. Thompson was charged with manufacturing,

transferring, and passing and attempting to pass counterfeit United States obligations.

He pleaded guilty to the manufacturing count. At sentencing, the court applied a twolevel enhancement for obstruction of justice, finding Mr. Thompson had destroyed

evidence of his counterfeiting operation. The court also denied his motion for a

downward departure and finally sentenced him to fifteen months of imprisonment and

three years of supervised release.3

 

Appellate Case: 03-3632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769117 
-3-

In rendering its sentencing decisions, the district court observed the unfairness

it perceived in applying the enhancement for conduct the government would not have

discovered or been able to prove without Mr. Thompson’s voluntary confession. In

denying the defense motion for a downward departure to “undo” the effects of the

enhancement, the district court remarked:

There is another thing that frankly bothers me, and that is, judges read

newspapers and watch news broadcasts on television, and I know [the

prosecutor] you're under a great deal of pressure now . . . and I think the

Court's under some pressures now because frankly I follow the trials and

tribulations of my chief judge. Consequently, I'm frankly I'm not going

to give the exceptions. I'm going to apply the enhancement, because I

think technically you [the prosecutor] are correct. There is no way I can

read the sentencing guidelines to avoid the conclusions that you reach.

Even though [defense counsel] makes the best common sensical

argument and the best argument based on policy, and the best arguments

based on what probably is right, in a true sense of the word. This is one

of the those areas where the sentencing guidelines have a lapse, and it

can cause a problem for the Court in this case, but I'm going to go ahead

and use the sentencing guidelines rather than challenge the sentencing

guidelines at this point . . . .

Sentencing Transcript at 9-10 (emphasis added). 

On appeal, Mr. Thompson argues the district court erroneously applied the

obstruction-of-justice enhancement and improperly relied on political considerations

in denying a downward departure. 

II

We review for clear error a sentencing court’s factual findings under U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.1 and review de novo the court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines to

the facts. United States v. Molina, 172 F.3d 1048, 1058 (8th Cir. 1999). Mr.

Appellate Case: 03-3632 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769117 
-4-

Thompson does not challenge the district court’s findings he destroyed both the hard

and digital copies of the counterfeit obligations. As a result, our review is limited to

the court’s application of § 3C1.1 to undisputed facts. 

Application Note 4 of § 3C1.1 contains a non-exhaustive list of the types of

conduct constituting obstruction of justice, including the destruction of material

evidence such as documents. The fact the government would not have known of the

destroyed evidence without the defendant’s cooperation does not take the conduct

outside the scope of § 3C1.1. Thus, reviewing the record de novo, we hold Mr.

Thompson’s admitted conduct falls within § 3C1.1 and conclude the district court

properly applied the two-level enhancement.

III

“A refusal to depart by a sentencing court that is aware of its authority to do so

is not appealable.” United States v. Booker, 186 F.3d 1004, 1007 (8th Cir. 1999). The

district court specifically considered and rejected the defense motion for a downward

departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.0 and 5K2.16. The court was undoubtedly

aware it had the authority to grant the departure but declined to do so under the facts

of this case. 

Mr. Thompson maintains impermissible political considerations deterred the

district court from granting the downward departure. True, a refusal to depart

becomes reviewable if a defendant makes a substantial showing the district court’s

refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive. United States v. Williams, 324 F.3d

1049, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). But we find no such motive on the part of the district

court. The district court merely expressed sympathy for the defendant’s position and

frustration with the Guidelines as they apply in this case. Thus, had the district court

acted upon the allegedly impermissible motive, it would have granted, rather than

denied, Mr. Thompson’s downward-departure motion. Instead, despite its own views,

Appellate Case: 03-3632 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769117 
-5-

the court properly refrained from granting a departure it believed was unauthorized

by the Guidelines. As the court stated, addressing government counsel, “There is no

way I can read the sentencing guidelines to avoid the conclusions that you reach . .

. I'm going to go ahead and use the sentencing guidelines rather than challenge [them]

at this point . . . .” Sentencing Transcript at 10. Finding no unconstitutional motive,

we conclude the district court’s refusal to grant the downward departure is

unreviewable on appeal. 

IV

Because the district court properly applied the Guidelines to the undisputed

facts in this case, the court correctly assessed the obstruction-of-justice enhancement.

Further, the district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure is unreviewable on

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm both sentencing decisions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3632 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/20/2004 Entry ID: 1769117