N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C HARLES LYNN DEC O TEAU, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30067

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-00065-B M M -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na B ria n M . M orris, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 9, 2016 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER

and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd WALTER , Se nior Distric t Judge
. *** 

# FIL ED MAR 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Dona ld E. W a lte r, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa t ion.This is a dire c t c rim ina l a

ppe a l, c ha lle nging only

the se nte nc e im

pose d. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt C ha rle s Ly nn De c ote a

u (“ Appe lla

nt” ) be at a

m a n to de ath by , inte r alia , kic king him

with ste e l-toe d boots. Thec rim e took pla c e in Appe lla nt’ s hom e on the Fort Pe c k

India n R e se rvation, in Popla

r, M onta na . Appe lla

nt wa s c ha rge d with Volunta

ry M ansla ughte r (C ount I), Assa

u lt R e sulting in Serious B odily Injury (C ount II) a

n d Assa ult with a Da nge rous W e a

p on, na m e ly ste e l-toe d boots (C ount III). Afte r a jury tria l , Appe lla

nt wa s c onvic te d

of the le sse r-inc lude d c ha rge of Involunta

ry M ansla ughte r on C ount I a

nd c onvic te d a s c ha

rge d on C ounts II a

nd III. As to e a c h c ount, thedistric t c o urt im pose d c onc urre nt se nte nc e s of 48 m onths’ im

prisonm e nt, a be low-guide line s te rm , followe d by thre e y e ars of supe rvise d re le a se . Appe lla nt now a rgue s tha t this C ourt should vac ate and re m and for re -se nte nc i ng be c a

use the distric t c ourt: (1) viola te d the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s gua ran te e a ga inst double

je opa rdy by fa iling to me rge his c ounts of c onvic tion for se nte nc ing purpose s; a

nd (2) e rre d by

de ny ing Appe lla

nt a downwa

rd a djustm e nt for a c c e pta

nc e of re s ponsibility . For the following re a sons, we a ffirm
. In de ny ing Appe lla

nt’ s m otion for m e rge r a

nd dismi ssa l of C ounts II a nd III at se nte nc ing, thedistric t c ourt c orre c tly a pplie d the e l e m e nta l te s t, se t forth in Bloc k b urge r v . Unite d State

s , 284 U.S. 299 (1932), to de te rm ine tha

t e a c h c ount of c onvic tion re quire d proof of a unique e le m e nt, not sha re d by the othe r c ounts. 2Appe l la

n t a c knowle dge s the a

p plic a bility of the Bloc k

burge r te s t but a

rgue s tha t Ball v . Unite d State

s , 470 U.S. 856 (1985), re quire s de pa rture from Bloc k

b urge r whe re , a s he re , the offe nse s of c onvic t ion a re the produc t

of a single c rim ina l obje c tive . Appe l la

nt’ s a rgum e nt fa i ls to re c ogniz e tha t Bloc k b urge r itse lf a ffirm e d two c onvic tions re sulting from one single drug sa le . 284 U.S. a t 304 (“ Apply ing the t e st, we m

ust c onc lude tha

t he re , a lthough both se c tions we re viola te d by the one sa l e , two offe nse s we re c om m i tte d.” ). R e l y i ng on Ball , and its a pplic ation in Unite d State s v . Ande rson , 850 F.2d 563 (9th C ir. 1988), Appe lla nt urge s a de pa rture from Bloc k

b urge r ’ s e le m e nta l c om

pa rison. Howe ve r, Ball

and Ande rson are b oth e a sily

distinguisha

ble , in tha t both of those

c a se s involve d c rim e s of c onvic tion for whic h proof of one ne c e ssa rily inc l ude d proof of the othe r. S e e Ball , 470 U.S. a

t 862 (C ongre ss c ould not ha ve inte nde d

m ultiplepunishm e nts for unla wful re c e ipt a

nd unla wful posse ssion of a

fire arm be c a

use proof of one offe nse

“ ne c e ssa rily inc l ude s proof” of the othe r (e m pha sis om itte d)); se e also Ande rson , 850 F.2d a

t 568 ( Ball a pplic at ion of Bloc k

burge r indic ate s tha

t C ongre ss did not inte nd m u ltiplepunishm e nts, whe re proof of e m be z z l e m e nt “ will ne c e s sa

rily inc l ude ” proof of unla

wful de la y of m a il). He re , the sa

m e c annot be sa id for Appe lla nt’ s thre e c rim e s of c onvic tion. The C ount I c o nvic tion for involunta ry m ansla ughte r, for a viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. 3§ 1112(a ), re quire d, inte r alia , proof of de ath, se e Unite d State s v . Paul , 37 F.3d 496, 499 (9th C ir. 1994); theC ount II c o nvic tion, for a viola tion of 18 U.S.C
. §§ 113(a )(6) an d 1153(a ), re quire d proof tha t the a ssa ult re s ulte d in thevic tim ’ s se rious bodily injury , s e e Unite d State s v . Smith , 520 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th C ir. 2008) (c iting 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(b)(2) a nd 1365(h)(3)); a

n d the C ount III c onvic tion, for a

viola tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a )(3) and 1153(a ), re quire d proof:

“ (1) that the de fe nda

nt inte ntiona lly struc k or wounde d the vic tim ; (2) tha t the de fe nda n t a c te d with the spe c ific inte nt to do bodily ha rm ; a nd (3) tha t the de fe nda n t use d a ‘ da nge rous we a

pon[,] ’ ” Smith , 520 F.3d a t 1101. B e c a

u se proof of one c rim e of c o nvic tion did not ne c e ssa rily inc lude proof of a

n othe r, and be c a use the re is no c le a

r e vide nc e of C ongre s s’ s c o ntra ry inte nt, the Bloc k

burge r pre s um ption indic at e s tha

t C ongre ss inte n de d m

ultiplepunishm e nts for the sa m e unde rly ing a c t. Se e Albe rnaz v . Unite d State s , 450 U.S. 333, 340 (1981) (noting the Bloc k b urge r e le m e nts te s t c ontrols a bse nt “ a c le ar indic ation of c ontra ry le gisla tive inte nt” ). Afte r denov o re vie w, we find no e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to m e rge and dismiss C ounts II a nd III at se nte nc ing. R e ga rding Appe lla

n t’ s e ntitle m e nt to a

n a djustm e nt ba se d on a c c e pta nc e of re sponsibility , this is a

fa c tua l de te rm ination re vie w e d for c le ar e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Fe lix , 87 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th C ir. 1996). “ The de fe nda nt be ars the
4burde n

of showing tha

t he ha s a c c e pte d re sponsibility for his a c tions.” Unite d State s v . Rojas-Pe droza , 716 F.3d 1253, 1270 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Unite d State s v . Ramos-Me dina , 706 F.3d 932, 940 (9th C ir. 2012)). Appe lla nt prim arily , and c orre c tly , a

rgue s tha t the re is no pe r se ba

r a ga inst downwa

rd a djustm e nts for a c c e pta n c e of re sponsibility

ba se d on a de fe nda

nt’ s de c ision to go to tria

l. B e c a use Appe l la n t de nie d only that the killing wa s inte ntiona l , rathe r tha n de ny ing tha

t his a c tions c a use d the vic tim ’ s de ath, Appe lla nt urge s us to find tha

t this wa s the rare c a se , c onte m

plate d by U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 c m

t. n.2, whe re a

two-le ve l re d

uc tion for a c c e pta n c e of re sponsibility

m a y oc c ur a fte r tria l. Se e Rojas-Pe droza , 716 F.3d a t 1270. B e fore de ny ing Appe lla nt’ s re que st, the se nte nc ing c ourt e n te rta ine d ora l argum e nt. In a c c orda

nc e with theguida

n c e se t forth in thea

pplic at ion note s to § 3E1.1, thec o urt foc use d its inquiry on the e ffe c t, if a

ny , of Appe lla

nt’ s pre -tria l sta te m e nts to la

w e nforc e m e nt a ge nts. Se e U.S. Se n t e nc i ng Guide line s M anua l § 3E1.1 c m

t. n.2 (“ In e a c h suc h insta nc e , howe v e r, a

de te rm ination tha

t a de fe nda n t ha s a c c e pte d re sponsibility will beba s e d prim arily

upon pre -tria l sta te m e nts a nd c onduc t.” ). The c ourt a lso re c ogniz e d tha t it ha d the be ne fit of having pre side d

ove r Appe lla

nt’ s tria l a

nd “ he ard in de ta il wha

t ha ppe ne d on the da y of the e ve nt in que stion, [a nd] what wa s in them i nds of a l l of the a c t ors at tha t 5tim e .” Afte r e xplic itly a c knowle dging tha

t proc e e ding to trial wa s not m utua lly e xc lusive with a c c e pta

nc e of re sponsibility , the c ourt m a de a thoughtful a

n d supporte d de te rm ination tha t Appe lla nt wa s not e n title d to a

downwa rd a djustm e nt ba se d on the fa c ts of the c a s e . The c ourt the n we nt on to c onside r de fe nse c ounse l’ s argum e nts, pursua

nt to the18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) fa c tors, be fore im p osing a se nte nc e be low the a dvisory

guide line range . Upon due c onside ra tion of there c o rd, we c annot sa y that the distric t c ourt e rre d in its de te rm ination tha t this Appe lla

n t’ s sta te m e nts did not c om

port with a c c e pta

n c e of re sponsibility . “ This is e spe c ia lly true give n tha

t ‘ the de te rm ination of these nte nc ing judge[on this issue ] is e ntitle d to gre at de fe re nc e on re vie w’ sinc e ‘ [t] he se n te nc ing judgeis in a unique position to e v a luat e a

de fe nda n t’ s a c c e pta

nc e of re sponsibility .’ ” Unite d State s v . Gamboa-C

arde nas , 508 F.3d 491, 505 (9th C ir. 2007) (a lte ra tions in origina l) (quoting U.S. Se nte n c ing Guide line s M anua l § 3E1.1 c m t. n.5). Appe lla

nt, m ore ove r, not only

we nt to tria l but did so to c ha lle nge his “ fa c t

ua l guilt,”U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 c m

t. n.2, a rguing thekilling wa s “

j ustifie d” on a

de fe nse -of-othe rs the ory . AFFIRM E D.

6