Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01546/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01546-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dammeon Binion
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1546

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Dammeon Binion, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2004

Filed: May 23, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government charged Dammeon Binion with being a felon in possession of

a firearm. The magistrate judge granted Binion’s request for a mental evaluation

and ordered Binion to be transported to the nearest medical facility. Binion

admittedly feigned symptoms of a mental illness. Binion entered into a straight guilty

plea without the benefit of a plea agreement. Binion objected to the presentence

investigation report recommendation that (1) two points be added to his base offense

level for obstruction of justice and (2) Binion should not receive a reduction for

Appellate Case: 04-1546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905719
1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

acceptance of responsibility. The district court1

 denied Binion’s objections, added

a two-level increase to Binion’s range for obstruction of justice, and refused to grant

a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court sentenced Binion to

seventy-eight months, to be followed by twenty-four months of supervised release.

Binion appeals and raises several sentencing issues, including the district court

sentenced him in violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and the

district court erred in enhancing his offense level based on a finding of obstruction

of justice and refusing to reduce his offense level for acceptance of responsibility.

We affirm.

I. Background

Police officers received a dispatch call for a “man with a gun.” The officers

received a second call indicating Binion had left the residence in a car. The officers

located and stopped Binion. The officers found a pistol in the side panel of the

driver’s door and arrested Binion.

The probation office issued a petition to revoke Binion’s supervised release.

At the subsequent hearing, Binion waived his right to a hearing on the allegations set

forth in the petition. The district court revoked Binion’s supervised release and

sentenced him to seven months imprisonment, followed by twenty months of

supervised release.

After Binion served his supervised release revocation, the government charged

Binion with being a felon in possession of a firearm. After an evidentiary hearing on

Binion’s pretrial motions, the magistrate judge recommended denying Binion’s

Appellate Case: 04-1546 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905719
-3-

motion to suppress evidence. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and denied Binion’s motion.

Binion filed a pro se motion requesting a mental examination “to determine the

competency and extent the defendant is able to assist properly in his defense.” The

magistrate judge held a hearing on Binion’s motion. The magistrate judge granted

Binion’s request for a mental evaluation and ordered Binion to be transported to the

nearest medical facility. 

Binion was transferred to a medical facility and Dr. James K. Wolfson

evaluated Binion for a few months. During his evaluation period, Binion took several

psychological tests, which were administered and interpreted under the supervision

of Dr. Richart L. DeMier. Dr. DeMier concluded Binion did not respond to the

questions in a forthright manner and severely exaggerated his problems. Dr. DeMier

concluded Binion was likely malingering if his behavior was not consistent with the

characteristics demonstrated by the test results. Dr. Wolfson concluded Binion has

no present mental illness and his reports of past symptoms are not particularly

plausible. Dr. Wolfson noted Binion’s dishonesty is likely a means of recreation and

Binion does not appear to be carefully planning his false complaints for a specific

material gain.

The parties were unable to reach an acceptable plea agreement, and Binion

entered into a straight guilty plea without the benefit of a plea agreement. The

presentence investigation report recommended two points be added to Binion’s base

offense level for obstruction of justice, noting Binion obstructed justice by requesting

a labor-intensive, time-consuming, costly evaluation by fabricating a mental illness.

The presentence investigation report recommended Binion should not receive a

reduction for acceptance of responsibility, because, other than his guilty plea, Binion

has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct as evidenced by his

fabrication of mental illness. Binion objected to the presentence investigation

Appellate Case: 04-1546 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905719
-4-

report’s two-point enhancement and lack of reduction for acceptance of

responsibility.

The district court held an evidentiary and sentencing hearing. Dr. Richard

Wetzel testified about the significance of Dr. Wolfson’s conclusion that Binion’s

feigning symptoms did not warrant a formal diagnosis of malingering. The district

court concluded that Binion feigned mental illness to get the doctors to diagnose him

as having a mental illness, which would have impacted the course of the prosecution.

The district court denied Binion’s objections to the presentence investigation report.

The district court added a two-level increase to Binion’s range for obstruction of

justice. The district court refused to decrease Binion’s range, because, the court

noted, Binion had not accepted responsibility. The district court sentenced Binion to

seventy-eight months, to be followed by twenty-four months of supervised release.

Binion appealed.

II. Discussion

Binion argues the district court erred in violation of Booker by enhancing his

offense level based on a finding that he obstructed justice by feigning a mental

illness. Binion objected to the facts underlying the Booker issue (the two-level

enhancement based on the finding that Binion obstructed justice by feigning a mental

illness). Binion’s objection did not preserve the Booker issue, because he did not

couple his objection with a specific reference to Apprendi, Blakely, or the Sixth

Amendment; therefore, our review of Binion’s Booker issue is for plain error. See

United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, 2005 WL 1039976 at *4 (8th Cir. Apr. 29,

2005) (noting that a defendant must couple an objection with a specific reference to

Apprendi, Blakely, or the Sixth Amendment in order to preserve the Booker error).

To meet the plain error test, Binion must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3)

that affects substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-36 (1993).

Appellate Case: 04-1546 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905719
-5-

If all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited

error only if the error also seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings. Id. 

As Pirani noted, it “is undisputed that the first two Olano factors are satisfied

here. The district court (understandably) committed Booker error by applying the

Guidelines as mandatory, and the error is plain, that is, clear or obvious, at this time.”

Pirani, 2005 WL 1039976 at *4. In order for Binion to show the error affected his

substantial rights, he “must show a ‘reasonable probability,’ based on the appellate

record as a whole, that but for the error he would have received a more favorable

sentence.” Id. at *6. 

We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and determine that Binion

cannot show the error affected his substantial rights as he cannot show a reasonable

probability he would have received a more favorable sentence. We affirm.

Binion next argues the district court erred in assessing a two-level enhancement

for obstruction of justice. Binion claims the district court ignored the psychiatrist’s

conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that Binion intended to influence the

outcome of his case. We review de novo the district court’s application of the

guidelines to the facts and review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.

United States v. Bustos Flores, 362 F.3d 1030, 1037 (8th Cir. 2004).

Binion filed a pro se motion for a mental evaluation claiming his hallucinations

(and mental problems) were interfering with his ability to assist in his defense.

Binion’s motion requested a mental examination “to determine the competency and

extent the defendant is able to assist properly in his defense.” Binion then, according

to his own expert, faked symptoms of mental illness. Binion now claims he must

have had the specific intent to obstruct or impede justice for the obstruction of justice

increase to be applicable. Binion does not dispute he knowingly feigned mental

Appellate Case: 04-1546 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905719
-6-

illness, but claims his intent in faking mental illness was to amuse himself and not to

impact his underlying case. 

The facts support the district court’s conclusion that Binion obstructed justice

by faking a mental illness to impact his case. As noted above, Binion filed a pro se

motion requesting a mental evaluation for the purpose of determining his competence

to proceed to trial. The magistrate judge ordered Binion to undergo a mental

examination to determine his competency. Dr. Wolfson informed Binion that the

mental evaluation was to determine if he was capable to proceed to trial. Clearly,

Binion was aware of the purpose of the mental evaluation, as the court, medical

personnel, and (presumably) his attorney informed Binion of the purpose of the

evaluation. Binion demonstrated his knowledge of the purpose of the mental

evaluation in his pro se motion, in which he requested an evaluation to determine his

competency and extent he is able to assist in his defense. The district court did not

err in enhancing Binion’s offense level by finding Binion attempted to obstruct or

impede his prosecution by faking a mental illness in order to be found unable to assist

in his own defense.

Finally, Binion argues the district court erred in declining to reduce his offense

level for acceptance of responsibility. Binion also argues the district court erred in

finding it could not give a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the

government had not filed a motion requesting the reduction. Absent clear error, we

will not disturb a district court’s decision to either award or deny an acceptance of

responsibility reduction. United States v. Colbert, 172 F.3d 594, 597 (8th Cir. 1999).

The sentencing guidelines commentary provide that “[c]onduct resulting in an

enhancement [for obstructing or impeding the administration of justice] ordinarily

indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.”

United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, cmt. n.4 (2001) & (2003). As

noted above, we have determined that the district court did not err in assessing points

to Binion’s base offense level, therefore we also determine that the district court did

Appellate Case: 04-1546 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905719
-7-

not err in refusing to reduce Binion’s offense level for acceptance of responsibility.

We affirm.

III. Conclusion

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1546 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/23/2005 Entry ID: 1905719