Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04001/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Zachary Lon Zeigler
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4001

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota.

Zachary Lon Zeigler, * 

aka Zachary T. Zeigler, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2006

Filed: September 18, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Zachary Zeigler pleaded guilty to five counts of use of another person's Social

Security card in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). The district court1

 sentenced

Zeigler to 24 months' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently, three years of

supervised release, and a $500 special assessment. Zeigler appeals his sentence,

arguing that it is unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
2

According to the PSR, between 1978 and 1984, Zeigler was convicted of the

following: forgery, fraudulent obtaining of aid for children, unauthorized use of food

stamps, perjury, battery, misapplication of Indian tribal funds, and impersonation of

an officer or employee of the United States. In 2004, Zeigler was convicted for

disorderly conduct.

3

The district court's Statement of Reasons reads as follows:

The Court imposed a sentence outside the advisory guideline range and

considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The defendant

-2-

I. Facts

In 1995, Zeigler applied for and later received a Social Security number for his

alleged son, Zachary T. Zeigler. Zeigler presented a Wyoming birth certificate with

a birth date of January 21, 1995, as well as a certificate of baptism for the child when

he applied in California. The government issued a Social Security number based on

these fraudulent documents in the name of Zachary T. Zeigler. Zeigler repeatedly used

the Social Security number obtained under this name and birth date in several states

to obtain driver's licenses, apply for work, and open bank accounts. The use of this

false number formed the basis for the instant five counts of conviction in South

Dakota.

Prior to sentencing, the United States moved for an upward departure based on

the inadequacy of Zeigler's criminal history. Zeigler's criminal history dated back 27

years and included 6 felony convictions, however, the Presentence Investigation

Report ("PSR") listed Zeigler's criminal history as a category I due to the lapse of time

between convictions.2

 At sentencing, the district court found that Zeigler's offense

level was four, with a criminal history category I, resulting in a recommended

sentencing range of zero to six months. However, the government requested at least

18 months' incarceration in its upward departure motion. Without explicitly ruling on

the government's upward departure motion, the district court found that Zeigler's

criminal history "completely" understated his criminal conduct.3

 Consequently, the

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
had a history of fraudulent conduct and "lying is a way of life" for him.

In 1984 he was convicted of Misapplication of Indian Tribal Funds in

Reno, NV, and he served six months custody. The aforementioned

offense involved his fraudulently collecting travel reimbursements. Later

in 1984, the defendant was convicted of Impersonation of an Officer or

Employee of the United States, and he served less than one year in

custody. Additionally, when the defendant was arrested in Lawrence

County, SD, in 2004, for a misdemeanor offense, he used the same

fraudulent Social Security number as the one in the instant offense.

The Court found the defendant's criminal history category of I

significantly understated his prior criminal conduct. The Court found a

sentence outside the advisory guideline range was justified pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), based upon the nature and circumstances of the

offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. The Court

also found the sentence imposed needed to afford adequate deterrence

for the criminal conduct pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). Based

upon the Court's findings, the Court sentenced the defendant to 24

months custody on each of the five counts, all to run concurrently.

4

Zeigler was convicted of disorderly conduct in 2004, which is a class II

misdemeanor under South Dakota law.

-3-

district court sentenced Zeigler outside of the advisory Guidelines range to 24 months'

imprisonment on each count to run concurrently, 3 years of supervised release, and

a $500 special assessment.

II. Discussion

Zeigler argues that his sentence is unreasonable given the totality of the facts

and circumstances of his case. Zeigler points out that a 22-year gap separated his last

conviction4

 and his next oldest conviction. Zeigler claims that the sentence imposed

by the district court is four times that recommended by the Guidelines, represents an

upward departure of nine levels, 18 months, or 400%, and that significant disparity

exists between the Guidelines range and the actual sentence imposed. Moreover, the

sentence exceeds the government's recommendation by six months. Additionally,

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-4-

Zeigler asserts that even if the district court placed him in criminal history category

VI, his sentence is still twice the recommended 12 months' imprisonment under that

calculation. Zeigler submits that the district court's sentence treats him differently than

similarly situated defendants contrary to the purpose of the Guidelines. Zeigler thus

urges that the sentence as imposed be found unreasonable and requests that we remand

his case to the district court for resentencing.

In response, the government points out that the district court considered the

Guidelines as well as the factors outlined in § 3553(a) in fashioning an appropriate

sentence. Specifically, the district court made explicit findings on the inadequacy of

Zeigler's criminal history, which justify sentencing Zeigler to 24 months'

imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.

We review the district court's interpretation and application of the Guidelines

de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d

496, 498 (8th Cir. 2005). "We will review a district court's decision to depart from the

appropriate guidelines range for abuse of discretion." United States v. Mashek, 406

F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). Sentences as a whole are reviewed for

unreasonableness as measured against the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.

at 1015–16. "To make [a] reasonableness determination, we ask whether the district

court abused its discretion." United States v. Pizano, 403 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2005).

"[A]n abuse of discretion may occur when (1) a court fails to consider a relevant factor

that should have received significant weight; (2) a court gives significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) a court considers only the appropriate factors but

in weighing those factors commits a 'clear error of judgment.'" United States v. Haack,

403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968,

970 (8th Cir. 1984)). 

After Booker, "the sentencing court must first determine the appropriate

guidelines sentencing range." Id. at 1002–03. 

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-5-

Once the applicable range is determined, the court should then decide if

a traditional departure is appropriate under Part K and/or § 4A1.3 of the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Those considerations will result in a

'guidelines sentence.' Once the guidelines sentence is determined, the

court shall then consider all other factors set forth in § 3553(a) to

determine whether to impose a sentence under the guidelines or a nonguidelines sentence.

Id. at 1003. 

Here, there is no dispute that the district court determined the appropriate

Guidelines sentencing range to be zero to six months' imprisonment. The district court

then considered the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether a "sentence outside the

advisory guideline range" was warranted for Zeigler's understated criminal history.

(Statement of Reasons 3). Thereafter, the district court sentenced Zeigler to 24

months' imprisonment, finding that the defendant's criminal history category I

significantly understated his prior criminal conduct. 

"[A]n upward departure may be warranted when 'reliable information indicates

that the defendant's criminal history category substantially under-represents the

seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will

commit other crimes.'" United States v. Hacker, 450 F.3d 808, 811–12 (8th Cir. 2006)

(citing U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1)). Although the 24-month sentence imposed was

substantially greater than the advisory Guidelines range found by the district court,

under the circumstances of this case, we find that Zeigler's sentence was reasonable.

United States v. Lyons, 450 F.3d 834, 836 (8th Cir. 2006). The district court

considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of

the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to afford

adequate deterrence for the criminal conduct. Specifically, the district court found that

"lying is a way of life" for the defendant, citing his numerous convictions for

fraudulent behavior. In fact, between 1978 and 1984, Zeigler was convicted of the

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-6-

following: forgery, fraudulent obtaining of aid for children, unauthorized use of food

stamps, perjury, battery, misapplication of Indian tribal funds, and impersonation of

an officer or employee of the United States. Further, the district court noted that when

the defendant was arrested in Lawrence County, South Dakota, in 2004, for a

misdemeanor offense, he used the same fraudulent Social Security number as the one

in the instant offense. "These are appropriate factors to consider in deciding whether

to vary from the guideline range, and the court did not neglect factors that should have

been given significant weight." Id. Because we find that the district court's upward

variance was supported by the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, we

conclude that Zeigler's sentence is reasonable.

We note that it is unclear whether the district court imposed an upward

departure or an upward variance. The district court, in the sentencing hearing, stated

that the 24-month sentence "constitutes an upward departure from the recommended

guideline range." Sent. Tr. 26. However, the district court did not engage in a

traditional departure analysis as contemplated by Haack. "Although the district court

erred, the error was harmless." United States v. Sitting Bear, 436 F.3d 929, 935 (8th

Cir. 2006) (holding that the district court's failure to consider an upward departure

under the Haack analysis was harmless error). Zeigler "failed to establish that his

ultimate sentence is unreasonable, i.e., that the district court abused its discretion . .

. ." Id. Moreover, the considerations made by the district court "could have justified

a traditional upward departure under the guidelines, see USSG § 4A1.3(a) . . . ."

Lyons, 450 F.3d at 837. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, we affirm Zeigler's sentence.

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-7-

HANSEN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment. 

I concur in the judgment of the court because the district court's failure to rule

on the Government's departure motion was harmless error, and I agree that Zeigler's

ultimate 24-month sentence is reasonable given the nature and circumstances of his

offenses and Zeigler's history and characteristics as discussed by the court, supra at

6. I write separately to clarify the difference between departures from an otherwise

applicable Guidelines range (in order to arrive at a correctly calculated advisory

Guidelines sentencing range) and the imposition of a post-Booker non-Guidelines

sentence. I also write to reinforce the district court's obligation to rule on departure

motions in its quest for an accurate advisory Guidelines sentence. 

The court's opinion properly quotes the three-step analysis for reviewing a

district court sentence as set out in United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). (Supra at 4-5.) In performing its analysis,

however, I respectfully conclude that it conflates the difference between our review

of a district court's application of a departure under the Guidelines and our review of

the reasonableness of its ultimate sentence. Without first discussing whether the

district court properly calculated an advisory Guidelines sentence (which includes the

proper application of departures at step two), the court's opinion jumps right to the

analysis of whether the ultimate sentence was reasonable (step three). It further fails

to recognize the differences between departures and non-Guidelines sentences by

relying on United States v. Hacker, 450 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2006), a departure case, to

conclude that Zeigler's non-Guidelines sentence was reasonable under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). (Supra at 5.) When the court does address the departure issue, it again

conflates the separate inquiries by following its conclusion that the district court's

failure to address the Government's request for a departure was harmless error with

a statement that Zeigler failed to establish that his ultimate sentence was unreasonable.

(Id. at 6.)

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-8-

As we have explained many times since Booker, the district court must

determine a "Guidelines sentence" before applying the § 3553(a) factors to arrive at

a final sentence. The Guidelines sentence includes a calculation of the appropriate

advisory Guidelines range (step one), as well as a determination of whether any

departures apply (step two). Once the district court determines the advisory

Guidelines sentencing range (as modified by any departure determination it may

make), it then considers the § 3553(a) factors in deciding whether to sentence the

defendant within the identified advisory Guidelines range or to a non-Guidelines

sentence (step three). Haack, 403 F.3d at 1003; see also United States v. Ture, 450

F.3d 352, 356 (8th Cir. 2006) (applying Haack methodology); United States v. Sitting

Bear, 436 F.3d 929, 934-35 (8th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d

1104, 1114 (8th Cir. 2006) (same). 

Generally, if the district court errs in applying the Guidelines at step one or fails

to consider a requested departure at step two, we cannot conduct a reasonableness

review because the district court's critical starting point, a correctly determined

advisory Guidelines range, may be flawed. See United States v. Smith, 450 F.3d 856,

862 (8th Cir. 2006) (remanding for resentencing where the district court failed to rule

on the Government's request for an obstruction of justice enhancement); United States

v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1015 (8th Cir. 2005) ("The duty to remand all sentences

imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines exists independently

of whether we would find the resulting sentence reasonable under the standard of

review announced in Booker."). However, we have continued to apply prudential

doctrines, including harmless error review, to a district court's failure to properly

apply the Guidelines, including departures. Sitting Bear, 436 F.3d at 935; Mashek,

406 F.3d at 1017. In Mashek, the district court's failure to properly apply a downward

adjustment was not harmless to the defendant's appeal of her sentence. On the other

hand, the district court's failure to consider an upward departure in Sitting Bear was

harmless as to the defendant, who was "'deprived merely of the opportunity to receive

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-9-

an upward departure and, perhaps, a longer sentence.'" Sitting Bear, 436 F.3d at 935

(quoting United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1122 (8th Cir. 2005)).

The district court's failure to rule on the Government's motion for an upward

departure in this case is similar to the failure in Sitting Bear and was harmless to

Zeigler, the appellant here. Had the district court granted the Government's motion,

our reasonableness review would have involved comparing the imposed 24-month

sentence to a higher advisory Guidelines range than the 0 to 6-month range arrived at

by the district court without ruling on the departure motion, a much more difficult task

for Zeigler. See United States v. Gall, 446 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2006) ("How

compelling that justification [for a non-Guidelines sentence] must be is proportional

to the extent of the difference between the advisory range and the sentence imposed."

(internal marks omitted)).

It is my view that we must be careful not to commingle the review of a district

court's failure to grant a departure with the § 3553(a) reasonableness review. Because

an ultimate sentence is reasonable does not, in and of itself, make the failure to rule

on a departure motion harmless. Departures are based on specific sections of Chapter

5, Part K of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) Manual and USSG § 4A1.3.

Reasonableness of the ultimate sentence is based on the statutory elements contained

in § 3553(a). While the two may sometimes overlap, circuit courts, as well as district

courts, would do well not to make post-Booker sentencing any more confusing than

necessary by conflating the two distinct analyses. See Nancy J. King, Reasonableness

Review After Booker, 43 Houston L. Rev. 325, 327 (2006) ("[R]ather than skipping

over allegedly faulty assumptions or applications and heading straight to the

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, appellate courts must first sort out the

probability that any error the judge made in calculating the guidelines range and

permissible departures affected the sentence that was selected."). 

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-10-

Because the error was harmless, and the 24-month non-Guidelines sentence is

more than reasonable, I concur in the judgment of the court.

BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring.

Because I believe we should give "deference to the broad discretion visited

upon sentencing courts under the now-advisory guideline system," United States v.

McDonald, __ F.3d __, No. 05-1617, 2006 WL 2528580, at *7 (8th Cir. Sept. 5, 2006)

(Bye, J., dissenting), I concur in affirming Zachary Zeigler's sentence. I feel obliged

to write separately, however, to reiterate a point I made in McDonald about our court's

tendency to affirm sentences above the advisory guideline range and to reverse

sentences imposed below the guideline range. See id. at *10 (listing the upward

departures which this court has affirmed as well as the downward departures it has

reversed). 

In upward departure cases, we have focused in part upon the district court's lack

of an extended discussion of the § 3553(a) factors as a justification for reversing and

remanding a case to the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Myers, 439 F.3d 415,

419 (8th Cir. 2006) (remanding "for imposition of sentence following more explicit

and thorough consideration of all factors enumerated in section 3553(a)" where

district court did not do so in the first instance). In this case, the district court only

perfunctorily indicated it had "considered" the § 3553(a) factors. If we pretend, for

a moment, this case were one in which the guidelines called for a sentence of twentyfour months at the low end of the advisory range, and the district court had departed

downward 400% to six months, with the same sparse comments about consideration

of the § 3553(a) factors, I seriously doubt the district court's decision would have

survived our appellate review. 

Thus, although I concur in the judgment because I believe the sentence imposed

by the able district court judge is reasonable, I once again call for this court to take a

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190
-11-

critical look at the disparity in our treatment of upward and downward departure

cases. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4001 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090190