Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02143/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02143-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Belle Brave Bull
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2143

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Belle Brave Bull

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen

____________

 Submitted: May 16, 2016

 Filed: July 11, 2016

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge. 

Belle Brave Bull pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a

dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 5032, 1112, and 113(a)(3). 

She appeals her sentence, objecting to an upward departure and the reasonableness

of her sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093 
Intoxicated, Brave Bull and a group of friends began to argue. She lunged

toward one of them with a metal object, accidentally striking someone else causing

a deep laceration to the head. She continued arguing with yet another friend, Frances

Kathryne Wanna, outside. Wanna tried to calm the group down by pretending to call

the police. Brave Bull threatened her with a shovel for being a “snitch.” Wanna

curled up on the ground, crying. Brave Bull followed her into the house, pushing her

backwards down a flight of basement stairs. Brave Bull and another friend went to

check on her. She appeared to be crying. No one touched her. No one called for

medical help because some in the group had prior felonies and were on probation or

supervised release. The group left without Wanna. Two hours later, police found her

dead, still at the bottom of the steps in a contorted position. The fall dislocated a

femur and the first and second vertebrae, immobilizing her. Medical expertstestified

she probably lived up to an hour-and-a-half to two hours after the fall, and that she

likely would have survived with immediate medical attention.

The district court sentenced Brave Bull to 162 months’ imprisonment,

departing upward from criminal history category I to category VI. Brave Bull

contends the district court erred in departing upward on its three bases—U.S.S.G. §

5K2.8 for conduct that was “unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the

victim,” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21 for dismissed charges, and U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 for

inadequacy of Brave Bull’s criminal history category and likelihood of recidivism. 

She also objects to the reasonableness of the sentence. 

I. 

A.

“This court reviews an upward departure, if objected-to, for abuse of

discretion.” United States v. White Twin, 682 F.3d 773, 775 (8th Cir. 2012). Under

§ 5K2.8:

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093 
If the defendant’s conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or

degrading to the victim, the court may increase the sentence above the

guideline range to reflect the nature ofthe conduct. Examples of extreme

conduct include torture of a victim, gratuitous infliction of injury, or

prolonging of pain or humiliation.

Brave Bull claims that her conduct “in the heat of battle,” while both she and the

victim were drunk, is not extreme conduct. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward under

§5K2.8. Brave Bull intentionally pushed Wanna down the basement stairs, and after

checking, left her there without help. The district court, viewing photographs, said: 

[A]ny person, other than somebody who was blind, could know by

looking at those photographs and actually looking at the victim that she

was not fine and that she was dying. You can look at that and see in

these pictures, just that alone, that the victim was seriously injured and

needed medical attention immediately.

The district court also said:

As I say, I was struck primarily . . . of the cruelty of these young people

in leaving Frannie there to die. I do not understand that—how anyone

could do that. 

. . . .

. . . . When you leave somebody that you know or should have known

is dying and has been very severely injured, that is conduct that is

heinous, cruel, and brutal beyond the normal assault case.

The court concluded that “the conduct here is outside the heartland of the typical

voluntary manslaughter case.” See United States v. Iron Cloud, 312 F.3d 379, 382

(8th Cir. 2002) (applying § 5K2.8 where defendant’s conduct allowing the victim “to

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093 
be swept away by the rushing current and did nothing to try to save her” was “outside

the heartland of the typical voluntary manslaughter case”). This court “respect[s] the

district court’s superior feel for the case” when reviewing U.S.S.G. §5K2.8. Id.

B. 

Brave Bull did not object to the upward departures under the guidelines

sections 5K2.21 and 4A1.3. This court reviews these departures for plain error. 

United States v. Mees, 640 F.3d 849, 854 (8th Cir. 2011). Under plain-error review,

the defendant must show: (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial

rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings. United States v. Ault, 598 F.3d 1039, 1042 (8th Cir. 2010). 

Under § 5K2.21, “[t]he 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, or underlying a potential charge not pursued in the

case as part of a plea agreement or for any other reason; and (2) that did not enter into

the determination of the applicable guideline range.” “A sentencing court may rely

upon dismissed chargesin fashioning a reasonable sentence.” United States v. Azure,

536 F.3d 922, 932-33 (8th Cir. 2008). “In order to rely upon a dismissed charge for

purposes of sentencing, the government must prove the defendant committed the

alleged offense by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 933. “[A]lthough the

quantumof proofis less than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubtformulation used at trial,

the burden of proof remains unchanged at sentencing: the government bears the

burden.” Id. The district court noted the dismissal of second degree murder count

due to a plea agreement, and that Brave Bull’s initial shovel-assault of Wanna was

never charged. Brave Bull argues there was insufficient evidence that she killed

Wanna with “malice aforethought.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093 
The district court did not plainly err in departing upward under § 5K2.21. 

“Malice may be shown . . . by evidence of conduct which is reckless and wanton, and

a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care, of such a nature that the

factfinder is warranted in inferring that defendant was aware of a seriousrisk of death

or serious bodily harm.” United States v. French, 719 F.3d 1002, 1008 (8th Cir.

2013) (brackets and quotations omitted). By the unobjected-to facts, Brave Bull

called Wanna a “snitch” and threatened her with a shovel while she was curled up on

the ground asking to go home. After pushing Wanna down the stairs backwards,

Brave Bull checked on her without seeking medical help. See United States v.

Schiradelly, 617 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2010) (“[F]act statements in the PSR, to

which Schiradelly did not object, adequately supported a finding that the dismissed

charges were properly proved.”). Here, the district court found that “when you push

somebody down the stairs backwards, you are, of course, taking a great risk. And I

don’t think that being drunk excuses this type of cruelty . . . .” See United States v.

Eder, 836 F.2d 1145, 1149 (8th Cir. 1988) (finding “[t]he evidence supports an

inference of malice by the jury because Eder was aware of the serious risk of death

to Shelena and failed to act” where defendant inflicted head injury to victim, then

fled with victim, neglecting her medical needs until she died). The facts here

demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Brave Bull was aware of a

serious risk of death to Wanna when she pushed her down the stairs and left her

immobilized with no medical assistance.

Brave Bull challenges the district court’s departure under § 4A1.3. She first

argues she had no notice of the district court’s finding that her criminal history

category substantially under-represented the seriousness of her criminal history and

the likelihood of recidivism. To the contrary, paragraph 50 in the PSR, listing 11

convictions, states that “sentences resulting from tribal court convictions are not

counted, but may be considered under § 4A1.3.” Brave Bull thus had notice of a

potential upward departure under § 4A1.3. See White Twin, 682 F.3d at 776 (noting

PSR listed defendant’s extensive history in tribal courts, and district court did not

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093 
abuse discretion in departing under § 4A1.3 sua sponte). Cf. United States v.

Adetiloye, 716 F.3d 1030, 1038 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he district court was not required

to provide separate notice under Rule 32(h) in this case because the PSR already

listed § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 19(A) as a ground for departure.”).

Brave Bull also asserts that the district court did not adequately explain the

extent of its departure from a category I to VI. “To impose an upward departure

under § 4A1.3, the sentencing court first must proceed along the criminal history axis

ofthe sentencing matrix, comparing the defendant’s criminal historywith the criminal

histories of other offenders in each higher category . . . .” Azure, 536 F.3d at 931. 

This does not need to be a “ritualistic exercise in which the sentencing court

mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en route to the

category that it selects. But the sentencing court must adequately explain why it

determines that the intermediary categories fail to meet the purposes of § 4A1.3.” 

Mees, 640 F.3d at 854 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Brave Bull emphasizesthat her tribal convictions were non-violent. See United

States v. Gonzales-Ortega, 346 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The Guidelines do

note that the nature of the prior offenses and not the sheer number of prior offenses

‘is often more indicative of the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal record.’”). 

Her prior history consisted of mostly underage substance-abuse crimes, failure to

appear for court, and disorderly conduct. In addition to two pending underage

alcohol consumption charges,the court found she was violating substance-abuse laws

“on almost a daily basis” by “ingesting methamphetamine.” The district court also

discussed Brave Bull’s relevant conduct in the instant offense—including the

uncharged assault with the shovel. See Mees, 640 F.3d at 854 (finding the instant

offense—one charge for theft concerning federal funds—did not encompass all

defendant’s criminal conduct that occurred as a part of the embezzlement scheme). 

The district court does not have to “specifically mention that it had considered the

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093 
criminal histories of other offenders in each intermediate criminal history category,”

but its findings must adequately explain and support the departure. Id. at 855. 

It is not readily apparent, from the record, why the intermediate categories fail

to meet the purposes of § 4A1.3. However, even if the district court did not

adequately explain the increase from category I to category VI under § 4A.13, it did

not affect Brave Bull’s substantial rights. The district court also departed under §

5K2.8 and § 5K2.21, because the offense was “heinous, cruel, and brutal,” and the

range did not adequately reflect the seriousness ofthe offense based on the dismissed

second degree murder charge. The court found that Brave Bull’s base offense level

would have been 35 if she had pled guilty to second degree murder. The district court

specifically found that under category I and level 35, the guideline range would be

168 to 210 months. In the end, the court left the offense level at 27, choosing to

increase only the criminal history category—resulting in a lower guideline range of

130 to 162 months. The district court’s increase to a criminal history category VI,

even if error, did not substantially affect Brave Bull’s rights due to the other bases for

departure that the court found. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S.Ct.

1338, 1346 (2016) (“There may be instances when, despite application of an

erroneous Guidelines range, a reasonable probability of prejudice does not exist. The

sentencing process is particular to each defendant, of course, and a reviewing court

must consider the facts and circumstances of the case before it.”). 

II.

 

This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 

“A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it

fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an

irrelevant or improper factor, or considersthe appropriate factors but commits a clear

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093 
error of judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. White, 816 F.3d 976,

987 (8th Cir. 2016). 

The district court appropriately considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

At the hearing, the court discussed Brave Bull’s age, difficult upbringing, and lack

of parental supervision. The court detailed at length the nature and circumstances of

the offense and the need to provide just punishment, acknowledging “that a mother

of a very small child has been taken away.” The court addressed Brave Bull’s history

of substance abuse, recommending to the Bureau of Prisons that she be allowed to

participate in the substance-abuse treatment program. Finally, the court “carefully

considered” the § 3553 sentencing factors and explained, “A sentence of 7.25 years

for this type of conduct is totally inadequate, and I also think that the sentence that

the Government is asking for is excessive. That would be 25 years.” The court

sentenced Brave Bull to 162 month’s imprisonment. After the upward departure the

guidelines range was 130 to 162 months. The court’s 162-month sentence is

appropriate. Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (“If the defendant’s sentence is within the

Guidelines range, then we ‘may, but [are] not required to, apply a presumption of

reasonableness.’” (citing Gall v. United States, 522 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

-8-

Appellate Case: 15-2143 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 Entry ID: 4424093