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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 25 39

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

Edd ie Hum

m in gb ird

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 - Pie rre

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 13 Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 25 , 20 14 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Edd i e Hum m in gb ird pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of ab us iv e se xu al co nt act , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 11 53
, 22 44 (b ), an d 22 46 (3 ). The di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d 1

The Hon or ab le Ro be rto A. Lan ge , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a.hi s se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge at 6– 12 m on th s. The co ur t va rie d up ward
, se nt en ci ng

Hum m in gb ird t o 2 4 m on th s, th e st at ut or y m ax im um

. Hum m in gb ird ap pe al s,

co nt en di ng th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . W e aff irm.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

O n Apr il 14
, 20 12
, Hum m in gb ird ga ve th e vi ct im
, Mi ch el le Two Ch ar g e r , a rid e fro m a ba r in Kil go re, Neb ras ka
, to he r h o me o n t h e Ro se bu d Si ou x In di an Res erv at io n in So ut h Dak ot a. He as ke d to co m e in si de Two Ch arg er’s ho m e, an d sh e
ag reed

. The re is a di sp ut e as to wha t f o ll owe d. Afte r us in g th e ba th ro om , Hum m in gb ird en te red Two Ch arg er’s m as te r be dr oo m , whe re sh e was ei th er ex it in g th e ro om (acc or di ng to Two Ch arg er) o r o n t he be d (acc or di ng to Hum m in gb ird ).
Two Ch arg er rep or te d to po li ce th at Hum m in gb ird an al ly pe ne tra te d he r by fo rce. Hum m in gb ird de ni ed th is
, bu t ad m it te d Two Ch arg er was face do wn on th e be d an d he “ in te nt io na ll y

to uc he d h er g en it al ia , gro in , and in ne r th ig h, sk in to sk in , wit ho ut th e vi ct im ’s co ns en t.” St at em en t of Fact ua l Bas is at 1– 2, No. 12 -3 01 01
, ECF No. 42

. H u mm i n g b ird al so ex pl ai ne d th at he was in to xi cat ed at th e ti m e an d do es n o t

rem em b e r man y de ta il s of th at ev en in g. Sen te nc in g Tr. at 13 –1 5, No. 12 -3 01 01
, ECF No . 66

.

In Aug us t 20 12
, Hum m in gb ird was in di ct ed on on e co un t of ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 41 (a). In Mar ch 20 13
, Hum m in gb ird pl ed gu il ty
to a su pe rs ed in g in fo rm at io n ch arg in g hi m wit h on e co un t of ab us iv e se xu al co nt act , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b)

.

The Pres en te nc e In ve st ig a t i on Rep or t (“ PSR” ) reco m m en de d ap pl y in g a

cro ss -ref eren ce to ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (“ USSG”) § 2 A 3 .1(a )(2 ) (2 01 2)
, pu rs ua nt to USSG § 2A3 .4(c )(1 ). Thi s

cro ss -ref eren ce wou ld ha ve in crea se d th e ba se of fen se le ve l fro m 12 to 30

. The PSR al so reco m

m en de d ad di ti on al in crea se s du e to sp eci fic of fen se ch arac te ris ti cs : a

-2

-fo ur -le ve l in crea se to th e of fen se le ve l pu rs ua nt to USSG § 2A3 .1(b )(1 ) du e to th e us e of fo rce, an d a two -le ve l in crea se pu rs ua nt to USSG § 2A3 .1(b )(4 )(B) du e to se rio us bo di ly in jur y t o th e vi ct im

. At se nt en ci ng , ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d
Hum m in gb ird ’s ob

jecti on s to th e cro ss -ref

e r e n c e , us e of fo rce, an d se rio us bo di ly in jury. It fo un d th e ev id en ce ab ou t wha t oc cu rred th at ev en in g in eq ui po is e gi ve n th e vi ct im
, Two Ch arg er, di d no t te st ify. Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d a
gu id el in e ran ge of 6– 12 m on th s. The co ur t va rie d up ward
, ho wev er, an d se nt en ced
Hum m in gb ird to th e st at ut or y m ax im um of 2 4 m on th s.

II . Dis cus si on

W e rev ie w se nt en ces , “ whe th er in si de or ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ,” un de r “a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd .” 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 ta ti on om it te d)

. In rev ie win g th e di st ric t

co ur t’s se nt en ce, “ [w]e ‘m us t fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m mi tt ed no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7) ). W e th en co ns id er whe th er th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. Id

. Hum m in gb ird co nt en ds th e di st ric t cou rt erred in “ re-e m ph as iz [in g] [th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se ] by m ak in g it a ba si s fo r an up ward va ria nc e.” App el la nt Br. at 9. He fu rth er arg ue s th at th e up ward va ria nc e was un jus ti fia bl y la rg e gi ve n t he reco rd in th is cas e.

It was no t pr oc ed ur al erro r fo r t h e d i s t ric t co ur t to “ re-e m ph as iz e,” or

reco ns id er, th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se whe n s e n t e n ci ng Hum m in gb ird

. To th e co nt rary, th e co ur t is req ui red to co ns id er th es e fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) (“ The co ur t, in de te rm in in g th e pa rti cu la r s e n t e n c e to be im po se d, sh al l co ns id er— (1 ) th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen s e a n d th e hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs of th e d e f e n d a nt .”). A co ur t’s fai lu re to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s wou ld b e p r o ced ur al erro r. See Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 51

. Tha t th e
gu id el in es al so ta ke in to acco un t th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se do es no t

-3

-ren de r th ei r fu rth er co ns id erat io n an ab us e of di sc ret io n. “ [F]acto rs th at ha ve al read y

be en ta ke n in to ac c o u n t i n c a lc ul at in g th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge

. . . can

ne ve rth el es s fo rm th e ba si s of a va ria nc e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ch as e, 56 0 F.3 d 82 8, 83 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Here, th e co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se : Hum m in gb ird eq ua te d gi vi ng an a c q u ai nt an ce a rid e ho m e fro m a ba r wit h c on se nt for sex ua l co nt act , and th e res ul t was ve ry up se tt in g t o t he vi ct im

.

Hum m in gb ird ’s se nt en ce, in cl ud in g th e up ward va ria nc e, was al so

su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. W e ha ve rep eat ed ly st at ed th at “ it wil l be th e un us ua l cas e

w h e n w e rev ers 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 .” Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 4 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Hum m in gbird em

pha siz es the pe rc en ta ge va ria ti on fro m th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e

ran ge in arg ui ng hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on a b l e : wit h th e up ward

va ria nc e, hi s 24 -m on th se nt en ce was 10 0% m or e th an th e hi gh en d of th e cal cu la te d

gu id el in e ran ge

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s reject ed
, ho wev er, “ th e us e o f a r ig id

m at he m at ic al fo rm

ul a th at us es th e pe rcen ta ge of a de pa rt u r e as th e st an da rd fo r de te rm in in g th e st ren gt h of th e jus ti fic at io ns req ui red fo r a sp eci fic se nt en ce.” Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 47 . In d oi ng so , th e Co ur t n ot ed “ de vi at io ns fro m th e Gui de li ne s rang e wil l al way s ap pe ar mo r e ex tre m e—i n pe rcen ta ge te rm s— whe n th e ran ge it se lf is lo w.” Id. at 47 –4 8. The pe rcen ta ge of th e d ep art ur e is th us no t s uf fic ie nt in an d o f it se lf t o fi nd Hum m in gb ird ’s sen te nc e su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.

On rev ie w we “ m ay co ns id er th e ex te nt of th e de vi at io n” fro m th e gu id el in es , y et we “ m

us t [al so ] gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de c i s i o n th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le
, jus ti fy th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e.” I d

. at 51

. Hum m in g b i r d st at es , wit ho ut fu rth er ex pl an at io n, th at hi s act io ns were no t

ex tra or di na ry e n o u g h t o jus ti fy th e up ward va ria nc e. Howev er, “ ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces ” are no t need ed to jus ti fy a se nt en ce ou ts id e th e gu id el in e ran ge . Id.

-4

-a t 4 7

. As m en ti on ed ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d it s se nt en ce on th e § 35 53 ( a )

fact or s. Tho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve gr eat er weig ht to th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se th an to ot he r § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t or s al so co ns id ered
, th is jud gm en t was wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 56 9 F.3 d 37 4, 37 9 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (Th e d is tri ct co ur t “ ha s wid e la ti tu de to weig h t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s in each cas e an d as si gn so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot h e r s i n d e te rm in in g an
ap pr op ria te sen te nc e”). Th eref or e, we can no t s ay

th at it ab us ed it s d is cret io n.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th es e rea so ns , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-5

-