Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02234/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roger Dominic Abeita
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

1.fUN 1 71991 

I10BD.~T !'· HOE~KER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

r.1!e!'k 

v. No. 90-2234 

ROGER DOMINIC ABEITA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D. C. No. 90-143-JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Abeita entered a plea of guilty to one of four counts. 

As part of a plea agreement the remaining three counts were 

dismissed. 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2234 Document: 010110120914 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 1 
Prior to sentencing Mr. Abeita filed a "Motion for Downward 

Departure and Sentencing Memorandum." In this motion he argued 

his excellent employment record and his voluntary enrollment in a 

treatment program were circumstances not adequately addressed by 

the Sentencing Guidelines and warranted a downward departure. The 

district court was not persuaded and gave Mr. Abeita a sentence 

within the Guidelines range. 

Mr. Abeita appeals the district court's refusal to depart 

downward in light of the extraordinary circumstances of this case 

and asserts we must review this failure to depart downward de 

novo. 

The Government filed a Motion to Dismiss this appeal 

asserting we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's 

discretionary refusal to depart downward. 

United States v. Soto, 918 F.2d 882, 885 (10th Cir. 1990), is 

dispositive. The appeal in Soto was brought by the same office 

that brings this appeal the Federal Public Defender for New 

Mexico. In Soto, we held the discretionary refusal to depart 

downward is not reviewable under 18 U.S.C. § 3353. 

In United States v. Davis, 

Cir.), cert. denied 111 s. Ct. 155 

900 F.2d 1524, 1529-30 (10th 

(1990), we held we had no 

jurisdiction to review refusals to depart downward under 18 u.s.c. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2234 Document: 010110120914 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 2 
§ 3742(a). Mr. Abeita basically ignores both Davis and Soto and 

argues that 28 u.s.c. § 994 requires the Sentencing Commission to 

take into account all relevant circumstances, and if the 

Sentencing Commission fails to do so, it becomes the district 

court's duty under 18 u.s.c. § 3553(a) to depart downward. 

The record is factually clear. Mr. Abeita sexually abused 

his stepdaughter over a seven-year period from the time the victim 

was six years old until she was thirteen. This factual foundation 

establishes Congress's wisdom in denying us the jurisdiction to 

review the trial court's refusal to depart downward based upon Mr. 

Abeita's stable employment record and counseling. There exists no 

defendant who fails to possess some redeeming quality. Congress 

has given to the trial court the task of weighing these factors 

and Congress has correctly denied this power to the appellate 

courts. 

The Government's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. This appeal 

is DISMISSED for lack of our jurisdiction to review the trial 

court's discretionary power to impose a sentence below that 

established by the Sentencing Guidelines. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2234 Document: 010110120914 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 3