Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01017/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Helena Michelle Matlock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1017

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Helena Michelle Matlock, also known * [UNPUBLISHED] 

as Marteka Matlock, * 

* 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2006

Filed: May 24, 2006 

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Helena Michelle Matlock appeals the sentence of ninety-seven months imposed

by the district court.1

 We affirm.

Matlock challenges her pre-Booker sentence on three grounds, the first of which

arises under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Matlock did not raise a

constitutional objection to the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines

Appellate Case: 05-1017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048327
-2-

before the district court. Accordingly, we review for plain error. United States v.

Light, 406 F.3d 995, 1000 (8th Cir. 2005). The district court stated its sentence

would have been identical if the Guidelines were found unconstitutional and it had

complete discretion to impose sentence. Because the district court properly

considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in arriving at its alternative sentence,

Matlock cannot show plain error. See United States v. Vinton, 429 F.3d 811, 819-20

(8th Cir. 2005) (concluding no plain error exists when the district court announces an

alternative, discretionary sentence higher than the sentence pronounced because the

defendant cannot establish he would have received a more lenient sentence under an

advisory Guideline regime).

Matlock next challenges her sentence arguing the district court erred in

applying an obstruction of justice enhancement for her failure to appear at two

sentencing hearings and resisting arrest. Matlock’s argument, however, is

uncompelling. See United States v. Young, 315 F.3d 911, 913 (8th Cir. 2003)

(holding the willful failure to appear warrants the application of an obstruction of

justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1(A)). To the extent Matlock argues the

district court must find the facts necessary to support the enhancement beyond a

reasonable doubt, this argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v.

McKay, 431 F.3d 1085, 1094 (8th Cir. 2005).

Matlock’s final argument is the district court erred in not applying a three-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty. We review the district

court’s decision to not apply a reduction for acceptance of responsibility for clear

error. United States v. Winters, 416 F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2005). It is a rare and

exceptional case when both an obstruction of justice enhancement and a reduction for

acceptance of responsibility are warranted. United States v. Perez, 270 F.3d 737, 739

(8th Cir. 2001). In determining when both are warranted, “[t]he district court should

consider the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the appellee’s

obstructive conduct and the degree of [the defendant’s] acceptance of responsibility.”

Appellate Case: 05-1017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048327
-3-

Id. (internal quotation omitted). The district court should also consider the timing of

the obstruction, its duration, whether the obstruction was stopped voluntarily or by

law enforcement officials, whether the defendant admitted and recanted or denied the

obstruction at sentencing, and the extent of the defendant’s cooperation with

investigating officials. United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968 (8th Cir. 1999).

The district court considered these factors and concluded the totality of the

circumstances, including Matlock’s failure to appear, and her eventual arrest for such

failure, resistance to that arrest, and denial of the obstructive nature of her conduct,

did not sufficiently warrant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility despite the

application of an enhancement for obstruction of justice. See United States v. Muro,

357 F.3d 743, 745 (8th Cir. 2004). This conclusion is not clearly erroneous.

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1017 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048327