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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 26 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Sh eeh an R. Gran t

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J op li n

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 17 Fil ed : M ay

26 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Sh eeh an Gran t was ch arg ed wit h in te rs ta te tra ve l wit h in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t

se xu al act s, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (b ). Two da y s be fo re tri al
, Gran t waiv ed

The Hon or ab le Lav en sk i R. S mi t h be cam e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St at es 1 Co ur t o f App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h C irc ui t o n M arch 11 , 20 17

.hi s rig ht to a jury tri al

. On th e m or ni ng of tri al
, Gran t wit hd rew hi s no t-g ui lt y pl ea

an d en te red a pl ea of no lo co nt en de re. Gran t’s pr es en te nc e i n v e s ti ga ti on rep or t

reco m m en de d th at he no t rece iv e cred it fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , no ti ng th at Gran t co nt in ue d to de ny th at he co m m it te d th e of

fen se at hi s ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng

. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Gran t cred it fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , 2

reca ll i n g t h e e ve nt s le ad in g up to th e en try of th e no lo co nt en de re pl ea. The co ur t

t he n im po se d a m id -Gu id el in es ran ge se nt en ce of 15 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d by 10 y ears ’ su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Gran t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in
de cl in in g to gr an t an of

fen se -le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. Fo r th e 3

reas on s ex pl ai ne d b el ow, we af fir m

.

Gran t cl ai m s th at he was en ti tl ed to th e red uc ti on be cau se he waiv ed hi s rig ht

to a jury, ad m it te d th at th e go ve rn m en t co ul d ad du ce su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pr ov e hi m
gu il ty, an d ch a n ge d hi s pl ea fro m no t gu il ty to no lo co nt en de re. Bu t,

The Hon or ab le M. Dou gl as Harp oo l, U n i t e d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Gran t al so arg ue s th at hi s no lo co nt en de re pl ea was no t vo lu nt ary be cau se th e 3 pl ea was in hi s be st in te res t on ly if he were affo rd ed a red uc ti on fo r a c c e p t a n c e of

res po ns ib il it y , wh i ch he di d no t rece iv e. Howev er, th is arg um en t is no t pr op erl y be fo re us b ecau se Gran t d id no t m ov e to wit hd raw h is pl ea in th e di st ric t cou rt. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Fo

y , 61 7 F .3d 10 29 , 10 33 –3 4 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

Fu rth er, Gran t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 11 by fai li ng to es ta bl is h a fact ua l ba si s fo r Gran t’s no lo co nt en de re ple a

an d fai li ng to co ns id er th e “ pu bl ic in te res t in th e ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce.” Se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (a)( 3)

. Howev er, Ru le 11 ’s fact ua l-b as is req ui re men t do es no t ap pl y to pl eas of no lo co nt en de re. Se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (b )(3 ) (“ Befo re en te rin g jud gm en t

on a gu il t y pl ea, th e co ur t m

us t de te rm in e th at th ere is a fact ua l ba si s fo r th e pl ea.” (em ph as is ad de d) ). And to th e ex te nt th at th e co ur t fai le d to co ns id e r th e pu bl ic in te res t in acce pt in g Gran t’s pl ea, su ch erro r was ha rm le ss be cau se it di d no t affe ct Gran t’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Se e Fed . R. Cri m . P. 52 (a).

-2

-“ [d ]eterm in at io ns as t o a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y

. . . are fact ua l fin di ng s th at we

rev ie w on ly fo r cl ear e r r o r.” Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s , 53 9 F.3 d 89 5, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. W

in te rs , 41 6 F.3 d 85 6, 86 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 5 ) (“ A
di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l de te r mi n at io n on whe th er a de fen da nt ha s de m on st rat ed

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y is en ti tl ed to gr eat de fere nc e an d sh ou ld be rev ers ed on ly
if it is so cl earl y erro ne ou s as to be wit ho ut fo un da ti on .”). “ W e do no t su bs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t fo r th at of th e di st ric t co ur t be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t is in a be tt er po si ti on
to as se ss whe th er a de fen da nt ha s acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y an d to as se ss th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es .” Jo ne s , 53 9 F.3d at 89 7; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Qui nt an a , 34 0 F .3d
7 0 0
, 70 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ It is

. . . well es ta bl is he d th at in se nt en ci ng m a t t e r s a di st ric t c o u r t ’s a ss es sm en t of wit ne ss cred ib il it y is qu in te ss en ti al ly a jud gm en t cal l

an d v irt ua ll y

un as sa il ab le on ap pe al .” (el li ps is in ori gi na l) ( qu ot at io ns om it te d) ).

In de cl in in g t o g r a n t a red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , t he di st ric t

co ur t he ard arg um en t fro m bo th pa rti es , co ns id ered th e ci rcu m st an ces an d ti m in g of
Gran t’s ch an ge of p le a, an d s ta te d:

THE COURT: All ri g h t

. Wel l, I wan t to do ev erythi ng I can to

en co ur ag e pe op le who are gu il ty o f th es e cri m es to ad m it th em so th at vi ct im s d on ’t hav e to tes ti fy . In t hi s cas e th ere was no act ua l v ic ti m so th e be ne fit of hi m pl ead in g is so m ewh at le ss to a vi ct im

. Am I al lo wed
to gi ve ha lf c red it ? Is i t t wo o r no th in g?

[Pro se cu to r]: I be li ev e it ’s two or no th in g, You r Hon or

. I th in k in im po si ng se nt en ce y ou can co ns id er hi s waiv er of jury tr ia l an d th in gs al on g t ho se li ne s b ut I th in k a s a l eg al m at te r it ’s two or n ot hi ng

.

THE COURT: W el l, I’m no t in cl in ed to do th at an y way . I do n’t th in k he ’s en ti tl ed to —I rem em be r th e pl ea he ari ng an d I al so kn ow th at

we were in th e m or ni ng of tri al

. The Co ur t is go in g to fin d— de ny th e

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y cred it

. I’m go in g to fin d th e co rrec t of fen se le ve l i s 1 51 to 18 8.

-3

-In ot he r wor ds
, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Gran t’s la st -m in ut e pl ea

ch an ge was in co ns is te nt wit h fin di ng th at he ha d acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s of fen se

. Upo n rev ie w of th e tra ns cri pt fro m th e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , we no te th at Gran t ne ve r ex pr es sl y acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y fo r th e of fen s e an d in di cat ed th at hi s

m o t h e r co ul d te st ify to hi s in no cen ce. Thu s, we fin d no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t

co ur t’s d en ia l o f th e red uc ti on for acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-4

-