# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 36 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mat th ew St . Pie rre

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Abe rd een

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 15 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, KELLY, an d S TRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Mat th ew St

. Pi erre pl ed gu il ty to ai di ng an d ab et ti ng se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § § 2, 11 11
, an d 11 53

. Pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t, th e
go ve rn m en t reco m

m en de d a Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge of 29 2- 36 5m ont

hs im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed th e pl ea ag reem en t’ s re co m m en de d 1

se nt en ci ng ran ge , ad op te d a hi gh er ran ge , a nd se nt en ced St

. Pi erre to 48 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t. St

. Pi erre ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea
ag reem en t an d th e di st ric t co u r t c om m it te d pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e erro r in cal cu la ti ng hi s se nt en ce. H a v i n g ju r is di ct io n pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 37 42 an d 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, we co nc lu de th e go ve rn men t d i d no t br each th e pl ea ag reem en t. The refo re, t h e a p p e a l waiv er is en fo rcea bl e wit h res pe ct to th e ot he r cl ai m s rai se d he re, an d we d is m is s t he ap pe al

.

G.K.I .W ., a fiv e-year-o ld gi rl, li ve d wit h he r m ot he r, Des arae Mak es Him Fi rs t,

an d St

. Pi erre , he r m ot he r’s do m es ti c pa rtn er, on th e St an di n g R o c k Si ou x In di an Res erv at io n. On W ed ne sd ay , Octo be r 5, 20 16
, st aff at G.K.I.W .’ s el em en ta ry sc ho ol

no ti ced th e ch il d ha d br ui si ng on he r face
, in cl ud in g he r ch eek an d fo reh ead

. W he n

as ke d wha t ha pp en ed
, G.K.I.W

. sa id St

. Pi erre hi t he r whi le he was dr un k. Sh e be ga n crying whe n st aff as ke d if sh e ha d be en hu rt an y whe re el se

. A s ch oo l nu rs e fo un d ad di t i o n a l br ui se s on G.K.I.W .’ s co ll arb on e, an d st aff al ert ed th e So ut h Dak ot a Dep art m en t of So ci al Serv ic es Ch il d Pro te ct io n Serv ic es (DSS) an d th e S t a n d i ng Ro ck Si ou x Trib e Ch il d Pro te ct io n Serv ic es (SRS T-CPS)

. A DSS so ci al wor ke r

ex am in ed G.K.I.W . and fou nd ev en m or e b ru is in g o n th e ch il d’s st om ach

. Tho ug h
SRST-C PS sa id th ey wou ld res po nd to th e cl ai m , th ey di d no t do so be fo re G.K.I.W

. ret ur ne d h om e.

The ne xt da y , s ch oo l of

fic ia ls tri ed to co nt act SRST-C PS m ul ti pl e ti m es , bu t SRST-C PS d id no t re tu rn th ei r cal ls . Even tu al ly, G.K.I.W .’ s s ch oo l ca ll ed th e Fo rt Yate s Po li ce Dep art m en t, b ut on ce ag ai n, n o o ne res po nd ed to th e cal l. The sch oo l of fic ia ls were pa rti cu la rly co nc ern ed be cau se th ere wou ld be no sc ho ol th e fo ll owi ng da y (Fri da y ) or th e fo ll owi ng Mo nd ay , an d th ey fear ed fo r G.K.I.W .’ s sa fet y at ho m e

The Ho n or ab le Ch arl es B. Kor nm an n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.
-2

-th at lo ng wit ho ut an in ve st ig at io n. Des pi te th es e co nc ern s, G.K.I.W

. was al lo wed to

ret ur n h om e.

W he n sc ho ol re su m ed th e fo ll owi ng Tue sd ay , Octo be r 11
, G.K.I.W

. was ab se nt

. Her si st er sa id s h e w as si ck

. Sch oo l of fic ia ls ag ai n cal le d SRST-C PS an d
ag ai n he ard no th in g, wit h th e cal l go in g di rect ly to vo ic ema i l

. The y al so le ft a

m es sa ge fo r DSS. Fi na ll y , G.K.I.W .’ s sc ho ol se nt it s own sc ho ol res o u r c e o ffi cer (SRO) to co nd uc t a welf

are ch eck at G.K.I.W .’ s ho m e. The SRO wen t to Mak es Him Fi rs t’s ad dr es s, bu t Mak es Him Fi rs t refu se d to le t th e S R O se e G.K.I.W

. Sh e sa id th e ch il d be cam e br ui se d by fig ht in g wit h he r si st er an d th at G.K.I.W

. was as le ep bu t

wou ld be in sch oo l t he ne xt da y

.

Howev er, aro u n d 1 : 30 th e fo ll owi ng m or ni ng , Mak es Him Fi rs t br ou gh t G.K.I.W

. to th e ho sp it al

. The ch il d was no t br eat h i n g a nd was co ld to th e to uc h; br ui se s co ve red m os t of he r bo dy, in cl ud in g la rg e br ui se s o n h e r c he st an d th ig h.
Des pi te at te m

pt s to res us ci ta te G.K.I.W
., sh e di ed sh or tl y th erea fte r. In ve st ig at or s l a t e r d e t e rm in ed th e cau se of de at h to be a te ar in th e ch il d’s ab do m en cau se d b y ab us e to he r to rs o.

Mak es Him Fi rs t ev en tu al ly ad m it te d to in ve st ig at or s th at sh e ha d ab us ed
G.K.I.W

. by hi tt in g he r wit h a sh oe an d pu nc hi ng he r. Sh e in it ia ll y di d no t im pl ic at e St

. Pi erre , an d St

. Pi erre de ni ed ab us in g th e ch il d. Howev er, aft er be in g in di ct ed fo r th e ch il d’s de at h, Mak es Him Fi rs t des cri be d ho w St

. Pi erre ab us ed G.K.I.W

. in th e da y s le ad in g up t o h er de at h. Mak es Him Fi rs t sa id th at fo r th ree ni gh ts in a

ro w—Su nd ay , M o n d a y, an d Tue sd ay —St

. Pi erre en te red G.K.I.W .’ s ro om la te at

n i g ht an d ab us ed th e ch il d. He accu se d G.K.I.W

. of no t sl eep in g be fo re sh in i n g a li gh t in he r face an d th en ph y si cal ly as sa ul ti ng he r by p ul li n g h e r h a i r , pu sh in g he r ch es t, s tri ki ng he r th ig h, an d gr ab bi ng he r ne ck . G.K.I.W. fou nd th e in juri es to he r ch es t part ic ul arl y

pa in fu l, as St. Pi erre ha d a lre ad y lef t b ru is es th ere b y

ab us in g h er th ro ug ho ut th e week

. Mak es Him Fi rs t ad m it te d th at on Tue sd ay , sh e an d St

. Pi erre

-3

-ke pt G.K.I.W

. h o me f r om sc ho ol be cau se th ey fear ed ge tt in g in to tro ub le if sc ho ol

st aff no ti ced th at G.K.I.W

. was co ve red in br ui se s. Sh e st at ed th e ab u s e es cal at ed th ro ug ho ut th e week ; by Tue sd ay ni gh t, St

. Pi erre wa s p i ck in g G.K.I.W

. up by th e

ne ck an d ch ok in g he r rep eat ed ly un ti l sh e bl ack ed ou t. Mak es H i m F i r s t s a id sh e be ga n crying an d be gg in g St

. Pi erre to st op hu rti ng th e ch il d, bu t he ig no red he r. At

on e po in t, St

. Pi erre he ld G.K.I.W

. by th e ne ck an d sh oo k he r so se ve rel y th at whe n h e p ut he r ba ck do wn, sh e co ul d no t st an d. G.K.I.W .’ s sp eech th en be cam e

un in te ll ig ib le
, an d sh e be ga n to be ha ve st ran ge ly. Mak es Him Fi rs t as ke d to gi ve th e ch il d a b a t h

. S t

. Pi erre po ur ed wate r on to th e ch il d’s face
, an d Mak es Him Fi rs t de m an de d th ey go to th e ho sp it al

. G.K.I.W

. tu rn ed pa le
, an d he r br eat hi ng sh al lo wed

. Sh e be ga n to fo am at th e m ou th

. Mak es Him Fi rs t at te m pt ed t o a s s is t th e ch il d’s br eat hi ng whi le St

. Pi erre st art ed th e car. On th e way to th e ho sp it al
, St

. Pi erre to ld Mak es Him Fi rs t th at he wou ld no t go to pr is on fo r he r ch il d, an d sh e ne ed ed to co m e
up wit h a li e to ex pl ai n th e ch il d’s in juri es

. Mak es Him Fi rs t ex pl ai ne d sh e in it ia ll y li ed to in ve st ig at or s o ut of h er fe ar o f St . Pie rre.

W he n in ve st ig at or s i nt erv ie wed ot he r ho us eh ol d m em be rs , th ey he ard

rep eat ed ly th at St

. Pi erre ha d a vi ol en t an ge r pr ob le m

. In th e da y s be fo re th e m ur de r,

on e pe rs on as ke d St. Pierre an d M ak es Him Fi rs t abo ut G.K.I.W .’ s freq ue nt crying
,
an d th e co up le sa id th e ch il d si m pl y wok e up th at way

. Ano th er pe rs on ha d be en to ld th at St

. Pi erre ha d on ce pu sh ed G.K.I.W

. in to a wall

. O n t h e d ay G.K.I.W

. di ed
, a wit ne ss st at ed St

. Pi erre an d Mak es Him Fi rs t act ed st ran ge ly, ap pe ari ng m or e

ne rv ou s th an sa d an d whi sp eri ng to on e an ot he r. In Nov em be r 20 16
, th e go ve rn m en t in di ct ed St. Pi erre as M ak es Him Fir st ’s co- de fen da nt

.

St

. Pi erre ev en tu al ly pl ed gu il ty to ai di ng an d ab et ti ng se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. The pl ea ag reem en t reco m m en de d a se nt en ci ng ran ge of 29 2- 36 5 m on th s imp ris on m en t. The pa rti es ag reed th e ba se of fen se le ve l was 38 bu t ag reed to a
two -p oi nt en ha nc em en t fo r a vu ln erab le vi ct im pu rs ua nt to Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l, § 3A1 .1(b ) an d a th ree- po in t redu ct io n fo r ti m el y

-4

-acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y pu rs ua nt to USSG § 3E1 .1, res ul ti ng in a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 37

. The y al so ag reed th at St

. Pi erre ’s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y was IV. St

. Pi erre waiv ed hi s rig ht to ap pe al on m os t gr ou nd s. Th e pl ea ag reem en t ex pr es sl y
st at ed th at it s rec o mm e n d a t i o ns were no t bi nd in g on th e di st ric t co ur t, an d if th e di st ric t co ur t r e

je c t e d it s pr op os al s, St

. Pi erre co ul d no t wit hd raw hi s pl ea. At hi s ch an ge -o f-p le a he ar ing
, St

. Pi er re st at ed he un de rs to od th at th e co ur t wou ld de te rm in e hi s act ua l ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge an d t h a t it was no t bo un d by th e pl ea
agreem en t’s reco m

m en da ti on

. He fu rth er sa id th at he un de rs to od hi s ap pe lla te w ai ve r

wou ld co ve r th e m ajor it y of g ro un ds on whi ch he co ul d ra is e an ap pe al

.

The pr es en te nc e inves tig at ion rep or t (PSR ) pr ep ared fo r St

. Pi erre ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng reco m

m en de d a se nt en ci ng ran ge of 36 0 m on th s to li fe im pr is on m e n t

. In arri vi ng at a to ta l o f

f e n se le ve l of 41
, th e PSR in cl ud ed an en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce p ur su an t t o USSG § 3C1 .1, to whi ch St. Pi erre ob jecte d. Th e
pr ob at io n of

fic er who wro te t h e r e po rt fil ed an am en de d PSR an d ad de nd um in

res po ns e to St

. Pi erre ’s ob jecti on s. The ad de nd um de fen de d th e ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce

en ha nc em en t by no ti ng Mak es Him Fi rs t te st ifi ed th at St

. Pi erre to ld he r to li e ab ou t wha t ha pp en ed to G.K.I.W

. At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t st at ed th at it

“ ad op t[e d]” th e am en de d rep or t an d ad de nd um bu t th at it was “ no t as ki ng th e Co ur t
to go ab ov e” th e st ip ul at ed se nt en ci ng ran ge

. As ou tl in ed in th e pl ea ag reem en t, th e
g o v e r n men t as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t to gr an t St

. Pi erre a th ree- po in t red uc ti on fo r ti m el y acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y an d joi ne d in St

. Pi erre ’s m ot io n fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re o r va ria nc e to reac h t he pl ea ag reem en t’s s en te nc in g ra ng e.

The di st ric t c o u r t d e cl in ed to fo ll ow th e pl ea ag reem en t’s reco m m en da ti on s. It fo un d th at St

. Pi erre ’s acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y was no t ti m el y an d ag reed wit h th e PSR ad de nd um th at an ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce en ha nc em en t was ap pr op ria te

. The di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at th e pr ol on ge d an d se ve re na tu re of th e ab us e ag ai ns t G.K.I.W

. m ad e th is cas e un li ke an y it ha d se en

. It ad op te d th e PSR’s reco m m en de d

se nt en ci ng ran ge an d se nt en ced S t

. P i e r r e to 48 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t. St

. Pi erre

-5

-ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t b y a do pt in g th e

PSR ad de nd um an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e erro r in de ci di ng hi s s en te nc e.

W e fir st de te rm in e whe th er th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t su ch th at St

. Pi erre m ay ap pe al

. “ W e r e v i e w q u es ti on s reg ard in g th e in te rp ret at io n an d

en fo rcem en t of pl ea ag reem en ts de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Mo sl ey , 50 5 F.3 d 80 4, 80 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ If th e go ve rn m en t br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t,” St

. Pi erre m ay
pr oc eed wit h hi s ap pe al “ de sp it e th e ap pe ll at e waiv er. ” U n i te d St at es v. Que be do
, 78 8 F.3 d 76 8, 77 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). “ [I]n de te rm i n i n g w h et he r th e go ve rn m en t ha s fu lfi ll ed it s ob li ga ti on s un de r a pl ea ag reem en t, we lo o k t o th e ag reem en t’s
pr ov is io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Kram er, 12 F.3 d 13 0, 13 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d
St at es v. Col em an , 89 5 F.2d 50 1, 50 5 (8t h Cir. 19 90 )). If the go ve rn m en t “ act iv el y ad vo cat e[s ] fo r an ou tc o me d iff eren t fro m th e on e it ha d pr om is ed ” to se ek
, it br each es th e pl ea ag reem en t. Uni te d St at es v. Fo wler
, 44 5 F.3 d 10 35
, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). In Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , th e pa rti es ’ pl ea ag reem en t ap pl ie d a sp eci fic Gui de li ne s se ct io n fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm , bu t aft er th e PSR us ed th e m or e se ve re fel on io us as sa ul t se ct io n, th e pr os ecu to r acce pt ed it s re c o mm e n da ti on ou t of “ an ob li ga ti on to ad vi se th e Co ur t of wha t th e fact s are.” 40 3 F.3d 10 37
, 10 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W it ho ut be in g pr om pt ed by th e co ur t, th e pr os ecu to r arg ue d th at th e fact s to whi ch Tho m

ps on ha d st ip ul at ed su pp or te d fel on io us as sa ul t. Id

. at 10 38
, 10 40

. The

co ur t he ld th at th e pr os ecu to r ha d, “ [i]n es se nc e,” arg ue d ag ai ns t th e pl ea ag reem en t
pr ov is io n a nd th eref

or e b reac he d t he ag reem en t. Id . at 1 04 0- 41

.

In St

. Pi erre ’s pl ea ag re em en t, th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to reco m m en d a se nt en ce of 29 2- 36 5 m on th s im

pr is on m en t. The ag reem en t m ad e no m en ti on of an ob st ru ct io n of ju s t i c e en ha nc em en t an d di d no t req ui re th at th e go ve rn m en t joi n in an y of St

. Pi erre ’s ob

jecti on s to th e PSR. At se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t rep eat ed ly req ue st ed

a se nt en ce wit hi n th e ag reed -u po n ran ge

. And
, un li ke in Tho m ps on , whe n St

. Pi erre ob jecte d to th e ob st ru ct io n- of -ju s t i c e en ha nc em en t in th e PSR, th e go ve rn m en t di d

-6

-no t arg ue th at th e fact s su pp or te d th e en ha nc em en t; it m erel y sa id “ th ere is ev id en ce

th ere” an d im m ed ia te ly em ph as iz ed it s req ue st fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re or va ria nc e
to reac h th e ag reed -u po n se nt en ci ng ran ge

. To be su re, as St

. Pi erre su gg e s t s , t h e
go ve rn m en t co ul d ha ve si m pl y no t ad dr es se d th e ob st ru ct io n en ha nc em en t at al l, an d th e go ve rn m en t’s st at em en t th at it “ ad op t[e d ]” t h e am en de d PSR an d ad de nd um

se em s, o n i ts face
, to in di cat e ag reem en t wit h it

. Howev er, vi ewed in co nt ex t, th e
go ve rn m en t’s ch os en co ur se d id no t co ns ti tu te br each

. Rat he r, th e go ve rn m en t ad vo cat ed fo r th e 29 2- 36 5 m on th se nt en ci ng ran ge ou tl in ed in th e pl ea ag reem en t no le ss th an si x ti m es at s e n t e n c i n g , i nc lu di ng in it s di sc us si on of th e PSR ad de nd um

. Bec au se th e go ve rn m en t pr om is ed to reco m m en d a se nt en ce wit hi n th e ag reed -u po n Gui de li ne s ra ng e an d c on si st en tl y di d s o, i t d id no t b reac h t he pl ea ag reem en t.

Hav in g fo un d th e pl ea ag reem en t e n f o r c e a bl e, we tu rn to whe th er St

. Pi erre waiv e d h i s r i g ht to ap pe al

. “ W he th er a va li d waiv er of ap pe ll at e rig ht s oc cu rred is

a qu es ti on of la w th at we wil l rev ie w de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Si sc o, 57 6 F.3 d 79 1, 79 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). “ W he n rev ie win g a pu rp or te d waiv er, we m us t co nf irm th at th e
ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e waiv er an d th at bo th th e waiv er an d th e pl ea
ag reem en t were en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly.” Uni te d St at es v. And is
, 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9- 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ). W e wil l no t “ en fo rce an ot he rwis e va li d waiv er i f to do so wou ld res ul t i n a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Id . at 8 91

.

Fi r s t , St

. Pi erre ’s ap pe al m us t fal l wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s waiv er. Und er th e pl ea ag reem en t, St

. Pi erre waiv ed “ hi s rig ht to ap pe al an y no n- juri sd ic ti on al is su es .” The pa rti es ex cl ud ed fro m th e waiv er in st an ces in whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de pa rte d

or va rie d up ward

. Bec au se St

. Pi erre ’s ap pe al do es no t rai se a juri sd ic ti on al is su e an d

t he di st ric t co ur t di d no t im po se an up ward de pa rtu re or up ward va ria nc e fro m t h e 36 0 m on th s to li fe im

pr is on m en t se nt en ci ng ran ge it ad op te d, th is ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e o f th e wai ve r.

-7

-Seco nd
, th e waiv er an d pl ea ag reem en t m us t ha ve be en en te red in to kn owi ng ly

an d vo lu nt ari ly. “ [A] di st ric t co ur t can he lp en su re th at a p l e a a g r e em en t an d

co rres po nd in g waiv er are en te red in t o k n owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly [b y ] pr op erl y
qu es ti on [in g] a de fen da nt ab ou t hi s or he r de ci si on to en te r th at ag reem en t an d waiv e th e rig ht to ap pe al .” Id

. at 89 0- 91

. H e r e , t he di st ric t co ur t di d ex act ly th at

. At St

. Pi erre ’s c ha ng e-o f-p le a he ari ng , i t cau t i o n e d
, “[I]f y ou do n’t li ke wha t I do in y ou r

cas e

. . ., y ou ha ve no pl ace to go

. You can no t go to th e Co ur t of App eal s in St

. Lou is
, Mi ss o u r i
, a n d y ou can no t go to th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t.” W hi le

no ti ng th at St

. Pi erre co ul d st il l ap pe al a se nt en ce th at va rie d or de pa rte d up ward
, th e di st ric t co ur t em

ph as iz ed th at th at was an “ ex cep ti on ” to St

. Pi erre ’s br oa d ap pe ll at e waiv er, sa y in g, “ [I]f I m ak e a m is ta ke in y ou r cas e an d y ou do n’t li ke it
, y ou are st uc k wit h it

. And so y ou are gi vi ng up ve ry va lu ab le rig ht s. Do y ou un de rs ta nd al l of th at , si r? ” St

. Pi erre res po nd ed
, “ Yes , si r.” The di st ric t co ur t th en ve rif ie d th at no on e ha d th reat en ed or co erce d St . P ie rre in to pl ead in g g u i lt y an d th at St . P ie rre wou ld en te r hi s pl ea “ vo lu nt ari ly on [h is ] pa rt an d of [h is ] own free wil l.” Thu s, th e reco rd in di cat es th at St. Pi erre en te red in to th e p le a ag reem en t k no win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

.

Fi na ll y , en fo rci ng th e waiv er m us t no t res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. “ [T]his

ex cep ti on is a na rro w on e,” pri nc ip al ly al lo win g th e ap pe al of il le ga l sen te nc es th at

are gr eat er th an th e m a x i mu m st at ut or y pe na lt y

. Id

. at 89 1- 92

. In co nt ras t, “ an al le ga ti on th at th e se nt en ci ng jud ge m is ap pl ie d th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s or ab us ed hi s or he r di sc ret io n is no t su bjec t to ap pe al in th e face of a va li d ap pe al waiv er.” Id

. at 89 2. Bec au se St

. Pi erre ’s ap pe al is gr ou nd ed in al le ge d erro rs by th e di st ric t co ur t in ap pl y in g th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, no m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce oc cu rs in en fo rci ng th e ap pe ll at e wai ve r. Ther efo re, t he waiv er i s v al id an d e nf or ceab le

.

Eve n if we co ns id ered th e m eri ts of St

. Pi erre ’s arg um en ts al le gi ng pr oc ed ur al

an d su bs ta nt iv e erro r, we wou ld affi rm th e se nt en ce of th e di st ric t co ur t. See Uni te d
St at es v. Co ok
, 25 2 F. App ’x 11 4, 11 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ). W he n rev ie win g th e se nt en ce o f a di st ric t cou rt, we fir st affi rm th e ab se nc e o f si gn ifi can t p ro ced ur al

-8

-erro r, su ch as fai li ng to co ns id er th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Gall v. Uni te d

St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7)

. Thi s do es no t req ui re “ ‘rob ot ic in can ta ti on s’ th at each

st at ut or y fact or ha s be en co ns id e r e d.” Uni te d St at es v. Lam or eau x, 42 2 F.3 d 75 0,
75 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cro sb y , 39 7 F.3 d 1 0 3
, 1 1 3 ( 2d Ci r. 20 05 )). Rat he r, “ al l th at is ge ne ral ly req ui red to sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co ur t is ev id en ce th at th e di st ri c t c o u rt was aware of th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Perk in s, 52 6 F .3d 11 07 , 11 10 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

St

. Pi erre co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r by fai li ng
to co ns id er th e di sp ari ty be twee n hi s se nt en ce an d th e se nt en ces im po se d on si m il ar de fen da nt s. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ic it ly di sc us se d si m il ar cas es ci te d by St

. Pi erre an d d es cri be d S t. Pi erre ’s cas e as “ far fro m ” th os e ex am pl es , s ay in g, “ I ha ve

ne ve r se en su ch a cas e as th is in th e 22 -p lu s y ears I ha ve sa t on th e be nc h, th e cru el ty da y in an d da y ou t.” Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t ap pr op ria te ly co ns i de red th e

se nt en ci ng fact or s, i t d id no t co m m it si gn ifi can t p ro ced ur al erro r.

Afte r co nf

irming th e ab se nc e of pr oc ed ur al erro r, we ex am in e th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce, us in g a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cr e t i on st an da rd .” Ga l l
, 5 5 2 U.S. at 41
, 51

. A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n on ly if it “ fai ls to

c on si de r a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ;” “ gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ;” or “ co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t” in weig hi ng th e pr op er fact or s. Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Kan e, 55 2 F.3 d 74 8, 75 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). A se nt en ce wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge is pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le
, an d

“ it wil l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n w e r e v e rs e a di st ric t co ur t se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge —as su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le .” Id

. at 46 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gard el li ni
, 54 5 F.3 d 10 89
, 10 90 (D.C. Ci r. 20 08 )). The “ di st ric t co ur t ha s wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in each cas e an d as si gn s o me f a c t or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an
ap pr op ria te se nt en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 56 9 F.3 d 37 4, 37 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

-9

-Here, St. Pi erre ’s se nt en ce was wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e cal cu la te d b y th e di st ric t co ur t an d is pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le

. The di st ric t co ur t cl earl y co ns id ered

se nt en ce di sp ari ty, an d it ha d “ wid e la ti tu de ” to as si gn g r e a t weig ht to th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e an d to em ph as iz e th e ab us e G.K.I.W

. ha d su ffer ed

. Id. a t 37 9. The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in im po si ng St

. Pi erre ’s

se nt en ce, an d we wou ld affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t ev en ab se nt th e ap pe ll at e waiv er.

Bec au se th e go ve rn m en t di d no t br each th e pl ea ag re e m en t an d St

. Pi erre waiv ed hi s ab il it y

to ap pe al on th es e g ro un ds , we di sm is s t he ap pe al

.

STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d c on cu rri ng in th e jud gm en t.

I ag ree wit h th e co ur t’s ex pl an at io n of why St

. Pi erre ’s ap pe al waiv er req ui res

us to di sm is s hi s ap pe al
, bu t I wou ld en d th e op in io n th ere. Onc e we di sm is s St

. Pi erre ’s ap pe al
, th ere is no th in g le ft to do

. To pr oc eed fu rth er an d a d d r e s s th e

un de rlyin g m eri ts , as th e co ur t do es , bo th de feat s t h e a p p e al waiv er an d is at od ds wit h th e jud gm en t, whi ch is to di sm is s rat he r th an affi rm

. Acco rd i n g l y, I jo i n th e

co ur t’s op in io n ex cep t it s un ne ces sa ry di sc us si on of th e m eri ts of St

. Pi erre ’s ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-