# 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- 19 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Bru ce Ch arl es Tol le fs on

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 No rth Dako ta - Farg o

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 6 , 20 17
Fi le d: Apri l 6 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, BEAM, an d M URPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Bru ce Tol le fs on pl ed gu il ty in 20 05 to on e co un t of co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d

84 6 a nd on e co un t o f vi ol en t cr im e in aid of r ack et eeri ng act iv it y in vi ol at io n o f 18

U.S.C. § 19 59 (a)( 3)

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 22 7 m on th s im pr is on m en t. 1

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , th en Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1

Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.In 20 15 Tol le fs on m ov ed fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on ba se d up on am en dm en t 78 2 to th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es whi ch red uc ed ba se of fen se le ve ls by two fo r cri m es in vo lv in g

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. Tol le fs on ap pe al s, an d

we affi rm

.

I.

Beg in ni ng in 20 00

, Tol le f s o n c on sp ire d wit h ot he rs to di st rib ut e co cai ne ,

m et ha m ph et am in e , an d m ari

juan a. The m em

be rs of th e co ns pi racy wou ld us e
vi ol en ce an d th reat s of vi ol en ce to pr om ot e th ei r dr ug act iv it ie s. Fo r ex am pl e, du rin g

th e co ur se of th e co ns pi racy Tol le fs on as ke d Ch arl es Dewal d to as sa ul t a

co co ns pi rat or in or de r to pr ev e nt hi m fro m sh ari ng in fo rm at io n wit h th e po li ce.
Dewal d th erea fte r cu t th e co co ns pi rat or 's th ro at wit h a kn ife

. Alt ho ug h th e

co co ns pi rat or su rv iv ed , t he wou nd req ui red ap pr ox i mat e l y t wen ty s ut ur es to cl os e.

In 20 05 Tol le fs on pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h in te nt

to di st rib ut e c o n t r o l l e d su bs ta nc es , i n vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6,

an d on e co un t of vi ol en t cri m e in a i d o f r a ck et eeri ng act iv it y , in vi ol at io n of 18

U.S.C. § 19 59 (a)( 3)

. At se nt en ci ng th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at hi s to ta l of fen se
le ve l was 40 an d th at h i s c r im in al hi st or y cat eg or y was II, res ul ti ng in a gu id el in e

ran ge of 32 4 to 40 5 m on th s im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t de pa rte d do wnwar d an d

se nt en ced Tol le fs on to 22 7 m on th s, whi ch acco un te d fo r 13 m on th s To l l efs on ha d

se rv ed in st at e p ris on

.

In 20 14 th e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Dis tri ct of Nor th Dak ot a is su ed a st an di ng or de r

ap po in ti ng th e Offi ce of th e Fed eral Pu bl ic Defen de r fo r th e Dis tri ct s of So ut h Dak ot a

an d Nor th Dak ot a to rep res en t al l de fen da nt s in Nor th Dak ot a "wh o m ay be el ig ib le

to s e e k a r ed uc ed se nt en ce ba se d up on ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n of Am en dm en t 78 2"

to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. Am en dm en t 78 2 red uc ed ba se of fen se le ve ls by two fo r
cri m es in vo lv in g co cai ne , m et ha m ph et am in e, m ari

juan a, an d ot he r co nt ro ll ed

-2

-su bs ta nc es

. U.S.S.G., ap p. C, amend . 78 2. Am en dm en t 7 88 m ad e am en dm en t 7 82

ret ro act iv e. U.S.S.G., app . C, am en d. 7 88

.

On May 15

, 20 15 Tol le fs o n f i l e d a pr o se m ot io n fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c) ba se d up on am en dm e n t 7 8 2. Tol le fs on arg ue d th at hi s

ne w of fen se le ve l was 38

, m ak in g hi s ne w gu id el in e ran ge 26 2 to 32 7 m on th s. Afte r
de ta il in g hi s reh ab il it at io n effo rts in p r i s on , Tol le fs on req ue st ed a ne w se nt en ce of

16 5 m on th s. On Nov em be r 23

, 20 15 Tol le fs on ' s f e d e ral pu bl ic de fen de r fil ed a

su pp l e men t to hi s pr o se m ot io n. The pu bl ic de fen de r req ue st ed a ne w s en te nc e of

18 3 m on th s, am ou nt in g to th e sa m e pe rcen ta ge red uc ti on fro m th e bo tt om en d of th e

am en de d gu id el in e ran ge as hi s or ig in al se nt en ce ha d be en fro m th e bo tt om en d of th e

o rig in al gu id el in e ran ge

. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d to an y red uc ti on to Tol l e f s o n ' s

se nt en ce.

On Mar ch 1, 2 01 6 t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d Tol le fs on 's m ot io n fo r a se nt en ce
red uc ti on

. The co ur t fir st no te d th at "To ll efs on is el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce redu ct io n"

un de r am en dm en t 78 2, bu t it de ni ed th e red uc ti on aft er co ns id eri ng " t h e p ol ic y

st at e men ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on an d th e fact or s se t fo rth in 18
U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)." To ll efs on fil ed a pr o s e m ot io n t o re co ns id er, wh ic h t he di st ric t

co ur t d en ie d. To ll efs on ap pe al s.

II.

Tol le fs on arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to

pr oc eed pr o se whe n i t " f or ced [co un se l] up on hi m su ch th at Tol le fs on ha d no

op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t hi s cas e in hi s ow n w a y." We rev ie w de no vo th is

co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e. See Uni te d St at es v. Fern an de z, 71 0 F.3 d 84 7, 84 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ) (p er cu ria m ). Und er th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, "[i ]n al l cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s, th e

accu se d sh al l

. . . ha v e t h e Ass is ta nc e of Co un se l fo r hi s de fen ce." U.S. Co ns t.

am en d. VI. In Fare tt a v. Cal ifo r n i a , 42 2 U.S. 80 6, 80 7 (1 97 5)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

-3

-he ld th at th e Si xt h Am en dm en t pr ot ect s th e rig ht of a de fen da nt "t o pr oc eed wit ho ut

co un se l wh en he vo lu nt ari ly and in te ll ig en tl y ele ct s t o d o s o."

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s si nc e he ld th at it s ho ld in g in Fare tt a "was co nf in ed to

th e rig ht to de fen d on es el f at tri al " an d th at th e "Si xt h Am en dm en t do es no t in cl ud e

an y rig ht to ap pe al ." Mar ti ne z v

. C o u r t o f App eal of Cal

., 52 8 U.S. 15 2, 15 4, 16 0
(2 00 0)

. The Co ur t ba se d th is ho ld in g on th e fact th at t h e t e x t o f th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t li m it s it s pr ot ect io n to th e "p rep arat io n fo r tri al an d at th e tri al it se lf" an d

th at th e rig ht of ap pe al "i s pu rel y a crea tu re of st at ut e." Id

. at 16 0 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Thi s reas on in g ap pl ie s eq ua ll y to po st co nv ic ti on se nt en ce red uc ti on

pr oc eed in gs

. The S u p r e me C o ur t ha s al so he ld th at a pr o se de fen da nt 's Si xt h

Am en dm en t rig ht s are no t vi ol at e d b y t he "u ns ol ic it ed pa rti ci pa ti on " of st an db y

co un se l "o ut si de th e pr es en ce of th e jury." McKa sk le v. W ig gi ns , 46 5 U.S. 16 8, 17 9
(1 98 4)

. The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e di d no t vi ol a t e To l le fs on 's Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht s.

Tol le fs on al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht to be

he ard be cau se it ap po in te d th e fed eral pu bl ic de fen de r to rep res en t hi m

. W e rev ie w
Tol le fs on 's du e pr oc es s arg um en ts de no vo

. S e e F e rn an de z, 71 0 F.3 d at 84 9. To

co m pl y wit h it s du e pr oc es s ob li ga ti on s, a di st ri c t c o u r t m us t pr ov id e a de fen da nt

"ad eq ua te n o t i c e a n d reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to be he ard ." St um p v. Ben ne tt

, 39 8

F.2 d 11 1, 11 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 68 ) (en ba nc ). Th e S u p r em e Co ur t in Mar ti ne z he ld th at

de fen da nt s do no t hav e a du e pr oc es s rig ht to se lf rep res en ta ti on on di rect ap pe al of

th ei r co nv ic ti on s. 52 8 U.S. at 16 0. Si m il ar to th e rig ht to pr oc eed pr o se , we fin d no

reas on why we sh ou ld no t ex te nd th e ho ld in g of Mar ti ne z to po st co nv ic ti on se nt en ce
red uc ti on pro ceed in gs

.

Tol le fs on arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t al so vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht to be

he ard be cau se th e co ur t wait ed to ru le on hi s pr o se m ot io n fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on

un ti l hi s ap po in te d co un se l fil e d a s u p p le m en ta l m ot io n. A di st ric t co ur t is no t

-4

-req ui red "t o e n t e r t a i n pr o se m ot io ns fil ed by a rep res en te d pa rty." Abd ul la h v.

Uni te d St at es , 2 40 F.3 d 68 3, 68 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Tol le fs on was rep re se nt ed at th e

ti m e he fil ed hi s pr o se m ot io n an d di d no t in di cat e hi s in te nt to reject as si st an ce fro m

th e fed eral pu bl ic de fen de r's of fic e un ti l aft er hi s at to rn e y fil ed th e su pp le m en ta l

m ot io n. Th e d is tri ct co ur t t hu s d id no t v io la te Tol le fs on 's d ue pro ces s ri gh ts

.

Tol le fs on ad di ti on al ly arg ue s th at hi s at to rn ey pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce.

B e c a u s e Tol le fs on ha d no rig ht to co un se l du rin g hi s po st co nv ic ti on se nt en c e
red uc ti on pr oc eed in gs , he can no t as se rt a "v al id cl ai m fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce." See

Uni te d S ta te s v . Edel m an n, 4 58 F.3d 79 1, 8 03 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

III.

Tol le fs on ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt im pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot io n for

a se nt en ce red uc ti on

. W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t's de te rm in at io n of whe th er

a de fen da nt is "el ig ib le fo r a se nt e n c e r e d uc ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ."

U n i t e d St at es v. Bro wne , 69 8 F.3 d 10 42

, 10 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). A di st ric t co u r t ' s
de ci si on "t o red uc e a se nt en ce an d th e ex te nt of an y red uc ti on ," ho wev er, is rev ie wed

"fo r an ab us e of di s c r e t i o n

. " Uni te d St at es v. Bu rrel l, 62 2 F.3 d 96 1, 96 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ).

If the Se nte nc ing Co m

m iss ion red uc es a de fen da nt 's se nt en ci ng ran ge , a di st ric t

co ur t m ay red uc e th e de fen da nt 's te rm of im pr is on m en t "af

te r co ns id eri ng th e fact or s

se t fo rth in [§ ] 35 53 (a )

. . . if su ch a red uc ti on is co ns is te nt wit h ap pl ic ab le po li cy

st a t e m en ts is su ed by th e" Co m m is si on

. 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t

m us t en ga ge in a two pa rt an al y si s. Fi rs t, it m us t de te rm in e "'t he am en de d gu id el in e

ran ge th at wou ld ha ve be en ap pl ic ab le to th e de fen da nt ' ha d th e rel ev an t am en dm en t

be en in effe ct at th e ti m e of th e in it ia l se nt en ci ng ." Dil lo n v. Uni te d St at es , 56 0 U.S.

81 7, 8 27 (2 01 0) (q uo ti ng U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (b )(1 )). The co ur t m us t t he n " co ns id er

an y ap pl ic ab le § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d de te rm in e whe th er, in it s di sc ret io n, th e

-5

-red uc ti on au th or iz ed by refe ren ce to th e po li ci es rel ev an t at st ep on e is warra nt ed in

who le or i n p art un de r th e p art ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e." Id

.

Tol le f s o n f i rs t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by d et erm in in g th at he was

cat eg or ic al ly in el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on

. The reco rd b e l i e s th is arg um en t.

The di st ric t co ur t's or de r st at ed "To ll efs on is el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on un de r

Am en dm en t 78 2." It als o cor rect ly ap pl ie d st ep on e of th e § 35 82 (c)( 2) an al y si s by

in di cat in g th at Tol le fs on 's am en de d gu id el in e ran ge was 26 2 to 32 7 m on th s. It th en
de ni ed Tol le fs on rel ie f u n d er st ep two aft er co ns id eri ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e

of fen se co nd uc t, an d hi s "p os t-s en te nc in g acco m pl is hm en ts ." The di st ric t co ur t

th eref or e di d no t co ns id er Tol le fs on cat eg or ic al ly in el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on

.

Tol le fs on al so ar g u e s t h 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 hi s po st se nt en ci ng reh ab il it at io n. "Al th ou gh a di st ric t co ur t m ay

co ns id er evi de nc e of a de fen da nt 's reha bi li ta ti on si nc e hi s pr io r se nt en ci ng , it is no t

req ui red to ad

jus t a se nt en ce." Uni te d St at es v. Hern an de z-M arfi l, 82 5 F.3 d 41 0, 41 2
(8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ) (em ph as is in origi na l) (i nterna l qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n he re be cau se it ack no wled ge d

Tol le fs on 's p os ts en te nc in g re ha bi li ta ti on effo rts . See i d. at 41 2– 13

.

Fi na ll y , Tol le fs on arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t' s d e n i a l of hi s m ot io n fo r a

se nt e n c e red uc ti on res ul te d in th e im po si ti on of an in crea se d se nt en ce an d th at th e
di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th is ne w se nt en ce. Alt ho ug h Tol le fs on was
el ig ib le fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on , "§ 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t c reat e a rig ht to it ." See

Hern an de z-M arfi l, 82 5 F.3 d at 41 2. The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e di d no t crea te a ne w

se nt en ce wh en it de cl in ed to m od ify his sen te nc e.

IV.

Fo r th es e rea so ns we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t's ord er.

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

-6

-