Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02761/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02761-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Meyers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2761

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

John Meyers, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2005

Filed: March 31, 2005 (Corrected: 04/12/05)

___________

Before BYE, HEANEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

John Meyers appeals the district court’s1

 decision to run his sentence imposed

for a federal conviction consecutively to a sentence imposed for a state conviction

arising out of the same sequence of events. Because the district court retained

discretion to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence and the imposition of a

consecutive sentence is reasonable, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-2761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885823 
-2-

I

The facts are virtually undisputed. Meyers was involved in a troubled

relationship with a young woman named Angelica Bittner, who, approximately two

years into the relationship, decided to move out of the home the two shared in

Branson, Missouri. She eventually settled in Bellevue, Nebraska, where she remained

in contact with Meyers via e-mail.

On at least two occasions prior to April 30, 2003, Meyers traveled to Bellevue

to spend time with Bittner. On that date, Meyers once again traveled to Bellevue.

Upon his arrival, Meyers informed Bittner he planned to take her away for five days.

When Bittner balked at his plan, Meyers informed her that he was holding her mother

at an undisclosed location. Meyers then produced a stun gun and activated it in her

presence. Feeling threatened, Bittner packed some belongings and traveled with

Meyers back to Branson.

On May 3, 2003, Bittner’s father, unable to contact his daughter, grew

concerned. Mr. Bittner placed a call to the Taney County, Missouri, Sheriff’s

Department at which time he informed law enforcement of his daughter’s troubled

relationship with Meyers. That same day, a sheriff’s deputy knocked on the door of

Meyers’s residence in Branson. When Bittner opened the door, the deputy asked her

if she was alright. She verbally indicated “yes,” but shook her head “no.” The deputy

then asked her to step outside where she told him she had been forced to come to

Branson by Meyers who had threatened her with a stun gun.

When the deputy asked to speak with Meyers, he ran toward the bedroom. The

deputy gave chase. Once near the bedroom, the deputy discovered Meyers holding

a black pistol. He raised the pistol toward the deputy, at which time the deputy pulled

his firearm and ordered Meyers to the ground. Meyers complied and was arrested.

Appellate Case: 04-2761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885823 
-3-

A search of the residence revealed the stun gun used by Meyers to threaten Bittner.

Bittner testified she never saw the black pistol until the incident with the deputy.

The State of Missouri charged Meyers with unlawful use of a weapon for using

the black pistol during the incident with the deputy. After pleading guilty, the state

court sentenced him to four years imprisonment. His mandatory release date, at least

according to Meyers, is May 6, 2006.

In addition to the state charges, a federal grand jury in Nebraska indicted

Meyers on one count of interstate stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and one

count of interstate domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(1). Pursuant

to a plea agreement, Meyers agreed to plead guilty to the offense of interstate

stalking. The plea agreement contained various stipulations, including one setting his

base offense level at 18, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.)

§ 2A6.2(a), making him subject to a two-level enhancement for possession or

threatened use of a dangerous weapon pursuant to § 2A6.2(b)(1)(C). The plea

agreement, however, contained no provision concerning the issue of whether his

federal sentence would run concurrently with, or consecutive to, the state sentence

which had been imposed as a result of his having pulled a firearm on the sheriff’s

deputy.

At sentencing, Meyers argued § 5G1.3(b) required the court to impose a

concurrent sentence. The government, on the other hand, argued § 5G1.3 left the

court with discretion to impose a consecutive sentence because the conduct which

formed the basis for the state charge did not form the basis for an increase to the

offense level on the instant federal offense. The government further argued there

should be additional punishment given to a defendant who opts to pull a firearm on

a law enforcement officer. The district court ultimately sided with the government

and ordered Meyers’s thirty-three month federal sentence to run consecutive to his

state sentence. On appeal, Meyers challenges this decision.

Appellate Case: 04-2761 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885823 
-4-

II

Generally, the district court retains broad statutory authority to impose a

sentence to run consecutively with or concurrently to an undischarged term of

imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). “[I]n determining whether the terms imposed

are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively,” a district court “shall

consider, as to each offense for which a term of imprisonment is being imposed, the

factors set forth in section 3553(a).” Id. § 3584(b). Prior to the dramatic changes in

federal sentencing which occurred as a result of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

728 (2005), the controlling § 3553(a) factor was “the kinds of sentences available”

under the United States Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the Sentencing

Commission. Id. §§ 3553(a)(4), (b)(1). Congress included in the powers delegated

to it the power to determine “whether multiple sentences to terms of imprisonment

should be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(1)(D).

The appropriate guideline provision was the controlling factor because the

sentencing guidelines were binding on courts with the force and effect of law.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 750 (citing Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 391

(1989)). After Booker, the Guidelines no longer have the binding force and effect of

law, but are merely advisory. Id. at 757. Thus, while the district court is required to

consider them, it is not strictly bound by them to the detriment of the other § 3553(a)

factors. Id.

However, as the statute requires the district court to consider the appropriate

guideline, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4), we review the Guideline’s advice on the matter.

Consistent with § 3584(a), the Guidelines advise the district court, with some

exceptions, to exercise discretion in imposing a sentence “to run concurrently,

partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of

imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.” U.S.S.G.

§ 5G1.3(c). 

Appellate Case: 04-2761 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885823 
-5-

One exception to this general recommendation is in a situation where the term

of imprisonment resulted from a related offense which is relevant conduct to the

instant offense of conviction and the term of imprisonment was the basis for an

increase in the instant offense (as long as instant offense was not committed while

serving a term of imprisonment). Id. § 5G1.3(b). In this situation, the Guidelines

advise the district court “the sentence for the instant offense shall run concurrently

to the remainder of the undischarged term of imprisonment.” Id. § 5G1.3(b)(2).

Meyers argues his sentence is of the type § 5G1.3(b) would advise the district

court to impose a concurrent sentence because the conduct which formed the basis

for his state conviction, i.e. pulling a firearm on the arresting sheriff’s deputy, also

formed the basis for the two-level sentencing enhancement for the use of a dangerous

weapon. Meyers’s argument is misplaced. The two-level enhancement Meyers

received was predicated on the use of a stun gun to abduct and threaten Angelica

Bittner. The firearm, on the contrary, was never used by Meyers to abduct or threaten

Bittner. In fact, she testified she never saw the pistol. Since Meyers received a twolevel enhancement for having used a stun gun to abduct her, a fact largely conceded

by the defense, he would have received the two-level enhancement regardless of

whether he pulled a firearm on the arresting officer. Therefore, because his state

conviction arising from his having pulled a gun on a sheriff’s deputy did not result

in an enhancement for the instant offense, this is not the type of situation for which

the Guidelines would recommend a concurrent sentence.

 

Accordingly, the Guidelines advise the district court “to achieve a reasonable

punishment for the instant offense” by running the federal sentence concurrently,

partially concurrently, or consecutively to the state sentence. The district court was

to consider this recommendation in addition to the other § 3553(a) factors in

formulating Meyers’s sentence. The ultimate sentence, thirty-three months to be

Appellate Case: 04-2761 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885823 
-6-

served consecutively to any undischarged term of imprisonment, was reasonable and

not an abuse of discretion, thus we affirm.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2761 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885823