Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02024/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Robert Rockenback
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2024

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

James Robert Rockenback, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2005

Filed: June 27, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Robert Rockenback pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting attempted

carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119 & 2. Specifically, the plea agreement

stated Rockenback, aiding and abetting Che Romero and with the intent to cause

serious bodily harm, attempted to take a motor vehicle from Danielle Taylor by force,

violence, and intimidation. The district court*

 sentenced Rockenback to seventy-eight

months in prison. Rockenback appeals his sentence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-2024 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920701
-2-

According to the presentence report (PSR), Rockenback and Che Romero tried

to rob a diamond store by abducting and carjacking the store’s owner at gunpoint.

When the owner escaped, the men forced their way into Taylor’s apartment to evade

police. Rockenback disabled Taylor’s phone, took Taylor’s car keys, and left the

apartment. Police found Rockenback hiding in Taylor’s car and arrested him. After

police surrounded Taylor’s apartment and Romero surrendered, police recovered

Romero’s gun from Taylor’s apartment and found a semiautomatic handgun in the

rental vehicle driven by Romero and Rockenback. Rockenback did not object to

these facts in the PSR. 

At sentencing, the district court began with a base offense level of 20, see

U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a)(2003), which the parties had agreed on in the written plea

agreement, then added five levels because a firearm was brandished or possessed

during the offense, see id. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), four levels because a victim was

abducted to facilitate the offense or escape, see id. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), and two levels

because the offense involved carjacking, see id. § 2B3.1(b)(5). The district court

declined to decrease Rockenback’s offense level for having a minor role in the

offense, see id. § 3B1.2(b), and for merely attempting to commit the offense, see id.

§ 2X1.1(b)(1), but did decrease Rockenback’s offense level by three for acceptance

of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1. Except for the acceptance of responsibility

reduction, each of the enhancements and reductions were specified in the plea

agreement as disputed by the parties. Because Rockenback had a criminal history

category of I, his sentencing range under the guidelines was seventy-eight to ninetyseven months. The district court sentenced Rockenback at the low end of the range.

Rockenback asserts for the first time on appeal that his sentence violates the

Sixth Amendment because his sentence enhancements were based on facts that were

not admitted by him or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). In responding to the PSR, however,

Rockenback did not challenge the fact that Romero brandished a gun and abducted

Appellate Case: 04-2024 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920701
-3-

Taylor, but simply made a legal argument that he should not receive the

corresponding enhancements because he did not commit the acts himself. Likewise,

at sentencing, Rockenback made no objections to the facts related to the sentencing

enhancements. Thus, the district court adopted the facts in the PSR and applied the

enhancements to Rockenback because he was legally responsible for Romero’s acts

under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). By failing to specifically object to the facts in the

PSR, Rockenback admitted the facts supporting the enhancements for the purposes

of Booker. United States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, there

was no Sixth Amendment violation. Id. 

Rockenback next asserts that because he only pleaded guilty to attempted

carjacking, the district court should have reduced his sentence for mere attempt under

§ 2X1.1(b)(1). The § 2X1.1(b)(1) reduction does not apply, however, when “the

circumstances demonstrate that the defendant was about to complete all such acts but

for apprehension or interruption by some similar event beyond the defendant’s

control.” Rockenback admits that after he and Romero forced their way into Taylor’s

apartment, he took Taylor’s keys from her counter, left the apartment, and got into her

car. As the Government notes, a defendant may commit a carjacking without actually

taking a car when the victim is not in the car. See United States v. Boucha, 236 F.3d

768, 775-76 (6th Cir. 2001). Here, Rockenback had completed the acts necessary to

take control of the car from Taylor, and was waiting for Romero in the car when

police found and arrested him. The arrest of Rockenback prevented the men from

leaving in Taylor’s car. Under the circumstances, we conclude the district court

properly declined to reduce Rockenback’s sentence for mere attempt. 

Rockenback also argues the district court should have reduced his offense level

for his minor role in the offense under § 3B1.2(b). We review the district court’s

finding that Rockenback did not play a minor role in the attempted carjacking for

clear error. United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir. 2005). To decide

whether a defendant should receive a reduction for minor role, the court compares the

Appellate Case: 04-2024 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920701
-4-

acts of each participant in relation to the relevant conduct and measures each

participant’s acts and culpability against the offense’s elements. Id. at 538-39. Here,

Rockenback committed most of the acts relevant to the attempted carjacking. After

disabling Taylor’s telephone, Rockenback took Taylor’s car keys, left her apartment,

found her car, and entered it. We cannot say the district court committed clear error

in finding Rockenback’s role was not minor.

 

Last, we note the district court committed plain error in applying the sentencing

guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, but we need not remand for

resentencing because Rockenback has not shown a reasonable probability that the

district court would have imposed a lighter sentence under an advisory guideline

scheme. McCully, 407 F.3d at 933. Rockenback’s sentence at the bottom of the

range is not enough in itself to make the required showing. Id.

We thus affirm Rockenback’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2024 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920701