Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01098/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01098-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Bradley Yahnke
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1098

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Bradley Yahnke, *

*

Appellant.

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2004

Filed: February 1, 2005 (Corrected March 22, 2005)

___________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge. 

Bradley Linn Yahnke pleaded guilty to maintaining a place for manufacturing,

storing, distributing, and using methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 and

18 U.S.C. § 2. In the presentence investigation report, he received a total offense

level of 17, with a criminal-history category of five points, or category III, according

to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court,1

 sua sponte, upwardly

departed two criminal-history categories, sentencing Yahnke to 57 months, plus three

years supervised release and a $100 special assessment. Yahnke attacks not the

Appellate Case: 04-1098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861798 
-2-

legality of the guidelines, but only the final sentence. Jurisdiction being proper under

18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Before United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 2005 WL 50108 (Jan. 12, 2005),

this court reviewed de novo whether the district court based an upward departure on

a permissible factor. See United States v. Flores, 336 F.3d 760, 763 (8th Cir. 2003),

citing PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 401(d), 117 Stat. 650 (2003) (amending

18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)). The "sentencing court's factual findings [were then] . . .

review[ed] for clear error and the reasonableness of a permissible departure for abuse

of discretion." Id. 

The Supreme Court in Booker excises section 3742(e) and any de novo review

of sentences. See Booker, 2005 WL 50108, at *24-25. This court now reviews

sentences for "unreasonable[ness]." Id. at *25.

Section 3553(a) remains in effect, and sets forth numerous factors that

guide sentencing. Those factors in turn will guide appellate courts . . .

in determining whether a sentence is unreasonable.

. . . . 

. . . The district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must

consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.

See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3553(a)(4), (5) (Supp. 2004). . . . The courts of

appeals review sentencing decision for unreasonableness.

Id. at *25, 27 (internal citation omitted). 

In this case, the district court followed U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a), finding Yahnke's

criminal-history category substantially underrepresented the seriousness of his

criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism. After Booker, this court determines

whether a sentence is unreasonable based on the factors in section 3553(a). Two of

Appellate Case: 04-1098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861798 
-3-

those factors are "the history and characteristics of the defendant" and the "need . .

. to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),

(a)(2)(C). Although the district court labeled its reasons in terms of the sentencing

guidelines, the sentence is based on a consideration of the factors in section 3553(a).

The district court based a one-category departure on Yahnke's prior seconddegree murder conviction, despite the crime's prior consideration in computing his

criminal history. As Yahnke notes, other circuits applied section 4A1.3 only "when

the defendant has committed crimes or conduct that the criminal history calculation

instructions . . . fail specifically to consider." See United States v. Henderson, 993

F.2d 187, 189 (9th Cir. 1993), quoting United States v. Morrison, 946 F.2d 484, 496

(7th Cir. 1991), cert denied, 506 U.S. 1039 (1992). But compare United States v.

Rivera, 879 F.2d 1247, 1255 (5th Cir.) (approving upward departure for murder that

also increased criminal-history points), cert denied, 493 U.S. 998 (1989). 

The district court's interpretation of section 4A1.3 is reasonable. Neither the

guidelines nor the commentary prohibit considering convictions also used to award

criminal-history points. Treating alike defendants with similar criminal histories (or

likelihood to recidivate) is based on the factors in section 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(2)(C), (a)(6). Thus, some categories of crimes, such as murder, would be

underrepresented by an inflexible 3-point addition for any sentence over one year and

one month. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a). 

 Yahnke was previously sentenced to 50 years for murder, and paroled after

serving only about 7 years. The violent nature of the murder conviction, the length

of the sentence, and the time actually served support a finding that Yahnke's criminalhistory category substantially underrepresented the seriousness of his criminal

history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). 

Appellate Case: 04-1098 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861798 
2

Yahnke asserts that the record does not show the violations resulted in

conviction, as the district court assumed. However, the district court was not required

to find that the parole violations resulted in conviction, because Yahnke admits the

violations occurred, both by not objecting to the presentence investigation report and

in his brief to this court. See Booker, 2005 WL 50108, at *16 ("Any fact (other than

a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum

authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be

admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."); see also

United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 690 (8th Cir. 1993) (district court may accept as

true all undisputed factual statements in a presentence investigation report).

-4-

The district court also found that Yahnke's parole violations and other

uncharged criminal conduct justified an increase in his criminal history. The

guidelines suggest that a district court increase a defendant's criminal history based

upon information of uncharged criminal conduct similar to the instant offense—

which a district court would now consider as part of the "defendant's history" and

"recidivism" factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C); U.S.S.G. §

4A1.3(a)(2)(E). 

 

The district court found that Yahnke had four parole violations, including three

failed urinalysis tests.2

 Yahnke also admitted numerous other incidents of criminal

conduct—all drug-related but not charged—for which he originally received no

criminal-history points. The district court reasonably considered Yahnke's continued

drug-related, uncharged conduct as proof that his criminal-history category

substantially underrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history and potential

for recidivism. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). 

The district court assessed Yahnke one criminal-history category for the murder

conviction. The district court then evaluated the parole violations and uncharged

conduct as if each instance resulted in a conviction. United States v. Leaf, 306 F.3d

529, 533 (8th Cir. 2002) (increase in criminal-history category upheld where the

Appellate Case: 04-1098 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861798 
-5-

district court evaluated each instance of uncharged conduct as if resulting in a

conviction). The court concluded that, although the parole violations and uncharged

conduct "would, individually, warrant an upward departure by a full criminal history

category," it would depart only one additional category. United States v. Yahnke,

297 F.Supp.2d 1173, 1195 (N.D. Iowa 2003). Based on the record, the district court's

sentence is reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. 

The sentence imposed by the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1098 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/01/2005 Entry ID: 1861798