Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02796/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02796-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy C. Burch
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2796

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Timothy C. Burch, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2005

Filed: May 11, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Timothy C. Burch (Burch) pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count

of possessing with intent to use five or more identification and false identification

documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3). The district court1

 sentenced

Burch to 51 months imprisonment, to run concurrently with the remainder of his state

sentences, but without credit for time already served on his undischarged state

sentences. On appeal, Burch contends the district court erred in not applying section

5G1.3(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) to credit his federal

Appellate Case: 04-2796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Entry ID: 1901548
-2-

sentence with the time already served on his undischarged state sentences. We

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In December 2001, Missouri authorities arrested Burch for driving while

intoxicated. During Burch’s arrest, officers discovered Burch possessed a number of

false identifications, fraudulent credit cards, and a hotel key card. Pursuant to a

federal search warrant, officers searched Burch’s hotel room. Officers discovered

evidence tying Burch to identity fraud, including a computer, digital cameras, photo

paper, software used to write checks on a computer, false driver’s licenses, social

security cards bearing other individuals’ names, a box of blank laminated

identification cards, blank business and personal checks, counterfeit checks made

payable to other individuals, and various identification cards bearing Burch’s name.

On March 26, 2004, Burch pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to one count

of identification fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3). The United States

Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report (PSR), which reported

Burch had undischarged prison sentences in Missouri, Wisconsin, and Iowa. In April

2002, a Missouri circuit court sentenced Burch to five years in prison for three counts

of forgery. In January 2003, a Wisconsin circuit court sentenced Burch to eight years

in prison for two counts of forgery, to be served concurrently with the Missouri

sentence. In July 2003, an Iowa district court sentenced Burch to five years in prison

for forgery to be served consecutively to five years in prison for tampering with

records. The PSR also stated, “[b]ecause the defendant is subject to an undischarged

term of imprisonment, the provisions of Section 5G1.3 may apply.” 

Burch objected to the PSR’s failure to credit time he had already served under

the Missouri sentence, because “[t]his conduct was ‘relevant conduct’ and used, in

part, to establish the loss for which [Burch] is accountable in this case.” In response

to Burch’s objection, the government argued the Missouri conduct was too remote,

Appellate Case: 04-2796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Entry ID: 1901548
-3-

because the Missouri conduct occurred “in 1997 through June of 1999,” while “the

crimes presently before the Court” occurred in 2001.

At sentencing, the parties submitted a “Joint Stipulation and Guidelines

Recommendation and Defendant’s Waiver of Rights and Consent to Apply the United

States Sentencing Guidelines” (Joint Stipulation). In the Joint Stipulation, Burch

waived his rights under the Sixth Amendment and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.

2531 (2004). The parties further agreed the Iowa and Wisconsin sentences “are for

conduct that is relevant conduct in this federal case[,]” and, accordingly, the Iowa and

Wisconsin sentences should run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the instant

case.

After receiving the Joint Stipulation, the district court questioned the

government’s position that the Iowa and Wisconsin sentences should run concurrently

with the federal sentence:

The Court: In your paragraph two, page three [of the Joint

Stipulation], you state that the federal sentence is to

be imposed concurrently with the Iowa and

Wisconsin sentences. . . . Do you agree that’s

applicable . . . ?

The Government: Your Honor, yes, I believe that each of those two

sentences contain at least a portion of–a portion of

the facts that went into those two convictions are

relevant conduct in our case and, therefore, I

believe it is appropriate for the sentences to run

concurrently with those two. 

The Court: Well, [section 5G1.3(b)] is only applicable if the

undischarged term of imprisonment resulted from

the offenses that have been fully taken into account

Appellate Case: 04-2796 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Entry ID: 1901548
-4-

in the determination of the offense level for the

instant case.

The Government: To the best of my knowledge, that is the case.

The district court imposed a 51-month prison sentence, to run concurrently

with the Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri sentences; three years supervised release; and

restitution in the amount of $10,325.84. Despite the parties’ stipulations, the district

court declined to credit Burch’s federal sentence with the time Burch had already

served on the undischarged Iowa and Wisconsin sentences. The district court further

refused to credit Burch’s sentence for the time already served on the undischarged

Missouri sentence “for the reasons set out in paragraph five of the answers of the

government to the defendant’s objections to the presentence investigation report.”

Burch reports that, as of the date of sentencing, he had served 12 months and 13 days

of the Iowa sentence; 21 months and 9 days of the Wisconsin sentence; and 27

months and 11 days on the Missouri sentence. 

II. DISCUSSION

Burch contends the district court erred in failing to credit his federal sentence

for the time he already had served on state sentences in Iowa, Wisconsin, and

Missouri. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines.

United States v. Arrieta-Buendia, 372 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Section 5G1.3 deals with the sentencing of a defendant subject to an

undischarged term of imprisonment. Subsection (b) applies when “a term of

imprisonment resulted from another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant

offense of conviction under . . . § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) and that was the basis

for an increase in the offense level for the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b).

Subsection (c) provides, “[i]n any other case involving an undischarged term of

imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run

concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term

Appellate Case: 04-2796 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Entry ID: 1901548
-5-

of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.”

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (Policy Statement). 

Burch contends section 5G1.3(b) requires he receive credit for time he already

served on his state sentences, because: (1) the government stipulated the conduct

underlying the Iowa and Wisconsin sentences was “relevant conduct” for purposes

of section 5G1.3(b); and (2) the Missouri sentence resulted from offense conduct that

“clearly qualifies as relevant conduct and was fully taken into account in the offense

level determination.” In response, the government contends: (1) the Joint Stipulation

was merely a recommendation which the district court was free to reject; and (2)

Burch failed to meet his burden to prove entitlement to receive credit under section

5G1.3(b). 

Because Burch pled guilty without a plea agreement, the Joint Stipulation was

not governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). The district court

correctly determined it was not bound by stipulated facts, because the Guidelines

permit a district court to evaluate the evidence independently before imposing a

sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 6B1.4 (Policy Statement) (“The court is not bound by the

stipulation, but may with the aid of the presentence report, determine the facts

relevant to sentencing.”); United States v. DeWitt, 366 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 2004)

(stating “the district court correctly observed that it was not bound by the drug

quantity or base offense level agreed to by the parties”). Therefore, the district court

was free to determine whether Burch’s state convictions involved conduct relevant

to the instant offense. 

In this case, the district court eschewed section 5G1.3(b), because the court

found Burch’s state convictions were not fully taken into account in calculating the

federal offense level. The district court, therefore, imposed a sentence under section

5G1.3(c). A district court’s choice between applying section 5G1.3(b) or section

5G1.3(c) usually turns upon the extent to which the offenses in question are related,

Appellate Case: 04-2796 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Entry ID: 1901548
-6-

and such relatedness inquiries are necessarily fact-sensitive. See United States v.

French, 46 F.3d 710, 717 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding a district court’s determination of

whether a state conviction was part of the same relevant conduct as the charged

conduct, for purposes of section 5G1.3, is a factual finding reviewed for clear error).

Accordingly, our appellate review is for clear error. Id. In light of Burch’s failure to

present evidence supporting his claim that the conduct underlying his state court

convictions was “relevant conduct” for purposes of section 5G1.3(b), we hold the

district court did not clearly err in declining to credit Burch’s federal sentence for the

time he already served on his state convictions.

Having reviewed the record and sentence in light of United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738, 765-66 (2005) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we further conclude the

sentence, as imposed, is not unreasonable. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm Burch’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2796 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Entry ID: 1901548