Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04092/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tammy J. Peters
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4092

___________

Tammy Peters, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

United States of America, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 29, 2006

Filed: October 6, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tammy J. Peters appeals the 104-month sentence imposed after her plea of

guilty to distributing methamphetamine. This court affirms.

Peters was indicted on June 6, 2003. On June 17 she surrendered and was

released on her own recognizance after signing a pre-trial release agreement in which

she promised not to use illegal drugs and to submit to drug testing at the direction of

her Pretrial Services Officer. Peters tested positive for meth on June 26, July 10, and

July 23. She twice admitted to her PSO that indeed she had used meth, in violation

of the agreement.

Appellate Case: 05-4092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2006 Entry ID: 2096933
1

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

Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

Peters pled guilty on September 29. As part of the plea agreement, Peters

promised not to "violate any local, state or federal law," aside from speeding or

parking tickets. Later that day, she was arrested for driving while barred. Peters

failed to provide required urinalysis samples on October 2 and again on October 7.

She missed a scheduled meeting with her PSO on October 8, who filed a

Noncompliance Memo with the district court.1

 A revocation-of-presentence-release

hearing was set for the following Tuesday, which Peters also did not attend. After a

continuance was granted, the district court revoked her pre-sentence release on

October 16.

At the (first) sentencing hearing the government requested and received a twolevel enhancement for obstruction of justice. Peters was sentenced to 110 months.

This court reversed, finding that her conduct did not qualify as obstruction of justice

under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Peters, 394 F.3d 1103, 1106-07

(8th Cir. 2005).

On November 15, 2005, Peters was re-sentenced to 104 months, six months less

than the first sentence and the middle of the 92-to-115-month range for a person with

her criminal history category (IV) and base offense level (26). Peters argues that the

district court erred in not granting a two-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility.

The Guidelines suggest eight "appropriate considerations" relevant to an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, including "voluntary termination or

withdrawal from criminal conduct or associations" and "post-offense rehabilitative

efforts (e.g., counseling or drug treatment)." U.S.SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL

§3E1.1, cmt. n. 1 (2005).

Appellate Case: 05-4092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2006 Entry ID: 2096933
-3-

Entry of a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of trial combined

with truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of

conviction...will constitute significant evidence of acceptance of

responsibility.... However, this evidence may be outweighed by conduct

of the defendant that is inconsistent with such acceptance of

responsibility. A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an

adjustment under this section as a matter of right.

USSG §3E1.1, comment. (n.3).

This court reviews "a district court's denial of an acceptance of responsibility

adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for clear error." United States v. Winters, 416

F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2005). "The sentencing judge is in a unique position to

evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination

of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review." USSG §3E1.1,

comment. (n.5). The burden is on the defendant to establish entitlement to a

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Honken, 184

F.3d 961, 968 (8th Cir. 1999).

After pleading guilty Peters continued her criminal conduct by driving while

barred that same day, which alone could support a denial of the acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. See United States v. Ngo, 132 F.3d 1231, 1233 (8th Cir.

1998) (upholding denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction for defendant who

was charged with driving while intoxicated after pleading guilty to possession of

counterfeit securities). In addition, the district court relied on other conduct including:

the missed meeting on October 8; Peters's failure to appear at the October 10

revocation hearing; her repeated use of meth; and her failure to remit two urinalysis

samples in violation of her pre-trial release agreement.

Appellate Case: 05-4092 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2006 Entry ID: 2096933
-4-

Peters argues that the driving-while-barred conduct is irrelevant to a drug

offense, and that her other transgressions are either excusable or too petty to justify

denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Unlawful conduct, however, need

not be directly related to the underlying offense to preclude an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. See United States v. Byrd, 76 F.3d 194, 197 (8th Cir. 1996)

("Guideline § 3E1. 1 does not preclude the sentencing judge, in the exercise of his or

her discretion, from considering unlawful conduct unrelated to the offense of

conviction in determining whether a defendant qualifies for an adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility."); see also Ngo, 132 F.3d at 1233. In view of the

repeated violations of Peters's pre-trial and plea agreements, the district court properly

rejected her explanations.

Peters's 104-month sentence was within the Sentencing Guideline of 92-to-115

months, and therefore is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Lincoln, 413

F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005). This presumption can be overcome by showing that

the sentencing court relied on some "improper or irrelevant factor." United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005).

Peters objects that this court previously held that her failure to attend the

October 10 revocation hearing was not willful, and therefore the district court

committed "clear error" by giving this factor "significant weight" in its decision. This

court previously held only that "the district court erred in finding that Peters willfully

obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of

justice." Peters, 394 F.3d at 1106. This court did not hold that her conduct could not

be considered by the district court in deciding whether to reduce the sentence for

acceptance of responsibility.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4092 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/06/2006 Entry ID: 2096933