# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 25 42

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

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.

Iral ee E. Fren ch , Jr., al so kn own as F ris co

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 - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 12 , 20 13
Fil ed : J ul y

9, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

I n a s i xt een -d ay pe rio d, Iral ee E. Fren ch

, Jr

. ro bb ed th e sa m e Kan sa s Ci ty,

Mi ss ou ri, ba nk twi ce. Fren ch he ld a crying te ll er at gu np oi nt in th e fir st ro bb ery an d

sh ot a se cu rit y gu ard du rin g th e se co nd

. A jury co nv ic te d Fren ch of co ns pi racy; ba nk

ro bb ery; us in g, carr y in g or br an di sh in g a fir earm du r i n g a cri m e of vi ol en ce;

at te m pt ed ba nk ro bb ery; an d us e or di sc ha rg e of a fir earm du rin g a cri m e of vi ol en ce.The di st ric t cou rt se nt en ced Fren ch to co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces to ta li ng 10 44 m on th s 1
(8 7 y ears ) im

pr is o n men t

. Fren ch ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m

.

I. BACKGRO UND

On Feb ru ary 9, 20 06

, at ap pr ox im at el y 6: 40 a.m ., Fren ch

, weari ng a m as k an d

arm ed wit h a Mo ss be rg sh ot gu n, an d hi s pa rt n e r, Thi rp lu s Mo os e, co nf ro nt ed

Ch y ne tt a Ada m s, a t el le r at a Uni te d M is so ur i Ba nk (UMB) bra nc h i n Kans as Ci ty,

Mi ss ou ri, as sh e arri ve d fo r w o r k a n d ex it ed he r car in an un de rg ro un d pa rk in g

ga rag e. Fren ch an d Mo os e le d Ada m s to th e ba nk at gu np oi nt

. Ada m s le t th e ro bb ers

in th e b an k, b ut was u na bl e to co m pl y wit h t he ir d em an d t o o pe n t he va ul t.

Afte r ta ki ng ap pr ox im at el y $8 ,20 0 fro m Ada m s’s te ll e r dr awer, Fren ch an d

Mo os e fo rced Ada m s ba ck to th e pa rk in g ga rag e. Fren ch po in te d hi s sh o t g u n at

Ada m s an d rep eat ed ly or de red he r to ge t in th e tru nk of he r car. Scre a mi n g a nd
crying

, Ada m s refu se d. When Fren ch an d M oo se ga ve up an d fl ed in Ada m s’s car,

Ada m s re tu rn ed to th e b an k a nd cal le d t he po li ce.

On Feb ru ary 24

, 20 06

, Fren ch an d M o os e ret ur ne d to th e sa m e ba nk at

ap pr ox im at el y 6: 30 a.m

. to ro b it ag ai n. As se ve nt y -y ear- ol d se cu rit y gu ard Dwig ht
Mayhu gh arri ve d in th e UMB pa rk in g ga rag e, Fren ch sh ot Mayhu gh wit h a sh ot gu n

th ro ugh the win do w of Mayhu gh ’s ve hi cl e fro m ap pr ox im at el y ei gh t to te n feet away.
The sh ot gu n bl as t st ru ck Mayhu gh in th e ne ck

, ch es t

, a n d s h o ul de r, sh at te rin g hi s rig ht up pe r arm

. The ro bb ers th en fo rced Mayhu gh fro m hi s ve hi cl e so he co ul d le t

th em in th e b a n k. W he n Mayhu gh pr ov ed un ab le to pr ov id e Fren ch an d Mo os e

acce ss to an y

cas h, t he y

for ced Mayhug h b ack to th e g arag e an d s to le hi s v eh ic le

.

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da t i o n o f th e Hon or ab le

Ro be rt E. Lars en , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te J u d ge fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of
Mi ss ou ri.

-2

-Bl eed in g he av il y fro m th e sh ot gu n wou nd

, Mayhu gh so ug ht he lp at th e

co nv en ie nc e st or e acro ss th e st reet fro m th e pa rk in g ga rag e. Para m ed ic s arri ve d an d

t r a n s p or te d Mayhu gh to Trum an Med ic al Cen te r whe re he un de rwen t su rg ery. A s Mayhu gh was ru sh ed in to an op erat in g ro om , an em erg en cy ph y si ci an who ha d

ex am in ed Mayhu gh br ie fly be fo re su rg ery ad vi se d a po li ce de te ct iv e th at he di d no t

be li ev e, at th at po in t, t ha t M ay hu gh ’s in juri es were i m

m ed ia te ly life th reat en in g.

Mayhu gh tra gi cal ly di ed th e ne xt da y fro m co m pl ic at io ns fo ll owi ng su rg ery.

C o n cl ud in g co m

pl ic at io ns fro m th e sh ot gu n wou nd cau se d Mayhu gh ’s de at h, th e

m ed ic al ex am in er de cl ared Mayhu gh ’s de at h a ho m ic id e. Fren ch m ai nt ai ns im pr op er

m ed ic al tre at m en t b y

a th ird -y ear r es id en t at th e h os pi ta l ca us ed Mayhug h’s deat h.

Afte r Mayhu gh di ed

, Fren ch de ci de d to “ st ay lo w” in St

. Lou is

, Mi ss ou ri, un ti l

th in gs cal m ed do wn. Fren ch ev ad ed arr e s t fo r al m os t two -an d- a-h al f y ears

. In
Aug us t 20 08

, ne w le ad s in th e in ve st ig at io n le d la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers to fo cu s on

Fren ch

. On Aug us t 27

, 20 08

, of fic ers arre st ed Fren ch in St

. Lou is fo r an ou ts ta nd in g

warra nt an d tra ffi c ti ck et s. Afte r a d v i s i n g Fren ch of hi s rig ht s un de r Mi ran da v.

Ariz on a, 38 4 U.S. 43 6 (1 96 6)

, an d ob ta in in g a si gn ed waiv er, th e of fic ers in te rv ie wed

Fren ch ab ou t th e ro bb eri es an d sh oo ti ng

. Hou rs la te r, Fren ch si gn ed a fo rm al

st at em en t, ad m it ti ng he pa rti ci pa te d in bo th ro bb eri es an d in te nt io na ll y sh ot Mayhu gh

. Offi cers di d n ot el ect ro ni cal ly reco rd Fren ch ’s in te rv ie w, ev en th ou gh

reco rd in g e qu ip m en t was av ai la bl e el se whe re i n t he bu il di ng

.

On S e p t e mb e r 23

, 20 08

, a gr an d jury ch arg ed Fren ch in a ni ne -co un t

in di ct m en t wit h co ns pi racy to co m m it ba nk ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1
( C o u n t 1) ; arm ed ba nk ro bb ery wit h fo rci bl e res tra in t, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S

. C

. §§ 21 13 (a), (e), an d 2 (Co un t 2) ; t h r e e c o u n t s of us in g, carr y in g, or br an di sh in g a

fir earm du rin g a cri m e of vi ol en ce, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i i) an d

2 (Co un ts 3, 7, an d 9) ; ki ll i ng a pe rs on whi le co m m it ti ng at te m

pt ed arm ed ba nk

-3

-ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 21 13 (a), (e), an d 2 (Cou nt 4); us in g, ca rry in g,

an d di sc ha rg in g a fir earm du rin g a cri m e of vi ol en ce cau si ng m ur de r, in vi ol at io n of

18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ii ), (j)(1 ), an d 2 (Co un t 5) ; an d two co un ts of carjac ki ng , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 21 19 an d 2 (Co un ts 6 an d 8 ).

On Octo be r 16

, 20 09

, Fren ch m ov ed to su pp res s hi s st at em en t to th e po li ce,

arg ui ng (1 ) hi s s ta te m en t was in vo lu nt ary; (2) hi s Mi ran da waiv er was in va li d; an d
(3 ) th e of fic e r s ’ fai lu re to reco rd hi s st at em en t vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s. On

Ja nu ary 7, 20 10

, aft er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d th e
di st ric t co ur t d e n y Fren ch ’s m ot io n to su pp res s. Ado pt in g th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s

rep or t an d reco m

m en da ti on ov er Fren ch ’s ob jec tio n, the dis tr ic t co ur

t de nie d Fr ench ’s

m ot io n.

Afte r a fiv e-d ay tri al be gi nn in g on Ju ly 18

, 20 11

, a jury co nv ic te d Fren ch of

co ns pi racy (Co un t 1) ; arm ed ba nk ro bb ery (Co un t 2) ; us in g, carr y in g, or br an di sh in g

a fir earm du rin g a cri m e of vi ol en ce (Co un t 3) ; an d th e l e s s e r i n c l u d ed of fen se s of

at te m pt ed ba nk ro bb ery (Co un t 4) ; an d us in g a f ire arm du rin g a cri m e of vi ol en ce (Co un t 5)

. The jury acq ui tt ed Fren ch of c a us in g Mayhu gh ’s de at h an d th e carjac ki ng -rel at ed off

en se s (C ou nt s 6 , 7, 8 , and 9).

On Ju ne 26

, 20 12

, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld a se nt en ci ng he ari ng at whi ch Fren ch

, th ro ug h co un se l, arg ue d th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) in co rrec tl y

ap pl ie d Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g G uid el ine s (U

. S. S. G

. or G uid el in es ) § 2B 3.1 (c)( 1) ’s

cro ss refe ren ce to U.S.S.G. § 2A1 .1 fo r fir st -d eg ree m ur de r, whi ch rai se d Fre n c h’s

ba se of fen se le ve l to 43

. At se nt en ci ng , Fren ch m ai nt ai ne d Mayhu gh di ed as a res ul t

of m ed ic al m al pr act ic e f

o l l o w i n g su rg ery, no t as a res ul t of be in g sh ot by Fren ch

. The PSR in cl ud ed an ex pe rt rep or t— pr ep ared in co nn ect io n wit h a ci vi l m al pr act ic e

act io n ag ai ns t Mayhu gh ’s med ic al pr ov id ers —i nd ic at in g Mayhu gh wou ld ha ve

su rv iv ed hi s wou nd s if no t fo r th e m ed ic al pr ov id ers ’ m is ta ke s, bu t Fren ch

-4

-c o mp l ai ne d th e PSR di d no t in cl ud e de fen se ex hi bi ts co nt ai ni ng th e de po si ti on

te st im on y fro m th e m al pr act ic e act io n.

The di st ric t co ur t, ov er th e go ve rn m en t’s ob jecti on , rece iv ed Fren ch ’s ex hi bi ts

in to ev id en ce for pu rp os es of a rg um en t as to a reas on ab le an d a pp ro pr ia te sen te nc e

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). St at in g it h a d r e v i ewed th e ex pe rt’s rep or t, th e di st ric t

co ur t ov erru le d Fren ch ’s ob jecti on to th e ap pl ic at io n of U.S.S.G. § 2 B 3.1 (c)( 1) ’s

fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r cro ss refe ren ce be cau se Fren ch in te nt io na ll y sh ot an d ki ll ed
Mayhu gh in th e co ur se of co m m it ti ng arm ed ro bb ery. See 18 U.S.C. § 11 11 (d efi ni ng

fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r). The di st ric t co ur t dete rm ine d the ev ide nc e es ta bli she d Mayhu gh

w ou ld no t ha ve be en ho sp it al iz ed an d faci ng a di ffi cu lt m ed ic al si tu at io n if no t f o r

Fren ch in te nt io na ll y

sh oo ti ng hi m

.

Rel y in g on a m it ig at io n vi de o pr ep ared fo r th e co ur t, Fren ch req ue st ed an

ag gr eg at e se nt en ce of fo rty-two y ears ba se d on hi s y ou ng ag e at th e ti me o f th e

of fen se (ei gh te en ) an d “ ge nu in e rem or se .” The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Fren ch ’s req ue st

fo r le ni en cy , sp eak in g at le ng th ab ou t Fren ch ’s se lfi sh ne ss an d “ cal lo us di sr eg ard ”

fo r Ada m s an d Mayhu gh du rin g th e ro bb eri es —Fr en ch was “ wil l i n g t o k i ll pe op le

an d te rro riz e pe op le f

o r a f ew th ou sa nd do ll ars .” Em ph as iz in g th at Fren ch

in te nt io na ll y “ sh ot to ki ll ” Mayhu gh, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d Fren ch was “ a th reat

to so ci et y .” Afte r co ns id eri ng t h e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d

co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces to ta li ng 10 44 m on th s (8 7 y ears ) im pr is on m en t. Fren ch

ch al le ng es th e ad m is si on of h is un reco rd ed st at em en t an d h is sen te nc e.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Mot io n to Suppr es s

Fren ch arg ue s “ [t]he [d is tri ct ] co ur t erre d by ad m it ti ng Mr. Fren ch ’s cu st od ia l

st at em en t in to ev id en ce whe n th e po li ce fai le d to m em or ia li ze it by vi de o or au di o

reco rd in g de sp it e am

pl e res ou rces an d op po rtu ni ty to do so , whi ch vi ol at ed hi s rig ht

to du e pr oc es s un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t

. ” Fren ch ’s du e pr oc es s arg um en t is

-5

-fo recl os ed by ou r de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 42 9 F.3 d 76 7, 77 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ), in whi ch we he ld th e Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t m an da te el ect ro ni cal ly reco rd in g

a d e fen da nt ’s c us to di al in te rro ga ti on

. See al so Je nn er v. Sm it h, 98 2 F.2 d 3 2 9

, 3 3 1

n.2 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (n ot in g “ ot he r ci rcu it s ha ve he ld th at in cri m in at in g st at em en ts are

no t in ad m is si bl e si m

pl y be cau se th e po li ce fai le d to reco rd or ta ke no te s o f th e

co nv ers at io ns ”). The di st ric t co ur t p ro pe rly den ie d F ren ch ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

B. Sent enci ng

1. Pro cedu ra l Er ro r

Fren ch co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d in im po si ng hi s se nt en ce by (1 ) di sr eg ard in g th e “ pa rs im on y pr in ci pl e,” (2 ) fai li ng to co ns id er th e se nt en ci ng 2

di sp ari ty be twee n Fren ch an d Mo os e, (3 ) co nc lu di ng Fren ch “ po se d a th reat to pu bl ic

sa fet y,” an d (4 ) ap pl y in g th e Gui de li ne s cro ss refe ren ce fo r fir st -d eg ree m ur de r
wit ho ut ad dr es si ng te st im on y th at m ed ic al m al pr act ic e cau se d Mayhu gh ’s de at h. “ In

rev ie win g a se nt en ce fo r pr oc ed ur al erro r, we rev ie w th e di st ri c t c o u r t’s fact ua l

fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es de no vo .” Uni te d St at es

v. Bark er, 55 6 F.3 d 68 2, 68 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). “ ‘Proce du ral erro r’ in cl ud es ‘fail in g to

cal cu la te (o r im

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as

man da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a se nt en ce b a s e d o n
cl earl y e r r o n e ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en

se nt en ce— in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .’ ”

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 Gall

v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 )).

T he so- ca lle d “ pa

rs im on y pr in ci pl e” refe rs to th e ov erar ch in g req ui rem en t th at 2

th e di st ric t co ur t “ im

po se a se nt en ce su ffi ci en t, bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces s a r y,”
18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), to ach ie ve th e st at ut or y go al s of se nt en ci ng

. See Uni te d St at es v. Yo un g, 6 44 F.3d 75 7, 7 62 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

-6

-Fren ch ’s cl ai m s of p r o c e d ur al erro r are un av ai li ng

. As no te d by th e

go ve rn m en t, Fren ch ’s as se rti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to “ reco gn iz e th e

pa rs im on y pr in ci pl e” is “ typic al ly as so ci at ed wit h su bs ta nt iv e erro r” an d ge ne ral ly

do es no t se rv e as an in de pe nd en t ba si s fo r pr oc ed ur al erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Lul eff,

57 4 F.3 d 56 6, 56 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). In an y e v e n t, to av oi d pr oc ed ur al erro r, a

se nt en ci n g c o u rt “ ne ed no t sp eci fic al ly res po nd to ev ery arg um en t m ad e by th e
de fen da nt

, or m ech an ic al ly reci te each § 35 53 (a) fact or .” Uni te d St at es v. St ru zi k,

57 2 F.3 d 48 4, 48 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. The se nt en ci ng co ur t

m us t “ se t fo rth en ou gh to sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co ur t th at he ha s co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’

arg um en ts an d ha s a reas on ed ba si s fo r ex e r c i si ng hi s own le ga l de ci si on m ak in g

au th or it y .” Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 (20 07 ).

Hav in g th or ou gh ly rev ie wed th e se nt en ci ng reco rd in th is cas e, we are sa ti sf ie d

th e di st ric t co ur t du ly co ns id ered th e ev id en ce, Fren ch ’s arg um en ts

, an d th e § 35 53 (a)

se nt en cing fa ct or s in im

posi ng an d ex pl ai ni ng Fren ch ’s se nt en ce. Im m ed ia te ly be fo re

se nt en ci ng Fren ch

, th e di st ric t co ur t he ard arg um en t fro m Fren ch ’s c o un se l, whi ch

in cl ud ed a di sc us s i o n of th e “ pa rs im on y pr in ci pl e” an d an ex pl an at io n as to why

Fren c h ’s y ou th

, rem or se , an d co nd uc t aft er th e ro bb eri es , as well as th e ex pe ct ed

se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty be twee n Fren ch an d Mo o s e , ju s t i fie d a lo wer se nt en ce. The

di st ric t co ur t al so rev ie wed Fren ch ’s s en te nc in g m em or an du m ad dr es si ng th e sa m e
is su es an d t o o k a r eces s to vi ew Fren ch ’s m it ig at io n vi de o— ev id en ce th e di st ric t

co ur t de sc rib ed as m ov in g. Afte r ex pr es sl y “ ta ki ng in to co ns id erat io n al l th e fact or s

se t fo rth un de r 1 8 U

. S

. C

., Sect io n 35 53 ,” th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a se nt en ce

s p eci fic al ly jus ti fie d in refe ren ce to ne arl y al l of th os e fact or s, de sc rib in g t h e

“ ho rren do us ” na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of Fren ch ’s cri m es , Fren ch ’s la ck of di rect io n

an d se lf- co nt ro l, th e ne ed to de te r su ch se rio us cri m es , an d th e ne ed to pr ot ect so ci et y
fro m Fren ch by im

po si ng “ a reas on ab le an d ap pr op ria te se nt en ce ” u n de r th e
ci rcu m st an ces . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r.

-7

-W e al so reject Fren ch ’s su gg es ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d by

ba si ng it s se nt en ce on a fact Fren ch as se r t s i s “cl earl y erro ne ou s” —n am el y , th at

Fren ch po se d “ a ‘thre at to so ci et y .’ ” Fren ch pl an ne d an d e x e cu te d two arm ed

ro bb eri es in si xt een da y s, at te m pt ed to fo rce a te rri fie d te ll er in to th e tru nk of he r car

at gu np oi nt to es cap e th e fir st ro bb ery, an d du rin g th e se co nd ro bb ery, sh ot a se cu rit y

gu ard wit h a sh ot gu n at cl os e ran ge be fo re dr ag gi ng hi m , bl eed in g, th ro ug h th e ba nk

. The di st ric t co ur t d id no t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g F ren ch was a th reat to so ci et y

.

Fren ch ’s l as t pr oc ed ur al ch al le ng e is t o t h e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e

f i r s t

- d e gr ee m

ur de r cro ss refe ren ce in th e se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne fo r ro bb ery.

Sect io n 2B 3.1 (c)( 1) di rect s th e se nt en ci ng cour t to ap ply § 2A1 .1(a )—t he fir st -d eg ree

m ur de r gui de lin e— “ [i ] f a vic ti m was ki ll ed un de r ci rcu m st an ces th at wou ld co ns ti tu te

m ur de r un de r 18 U.S.C. § 11 11 .” Sect io n 11 1 1( a) de fin es fir st -d eg ree m ur de r to

in cl ud e “ un la wfu l ki ll in g of a hu m an be in g wit h m al ic e afo ret ho ug ht

. . . co m m it te d

in th e p erp et rat io n of

, or at te m pt to pe rp et rat e, an y

. . . ro bb ery. ” Mal ic e m ay be

sh own no t on ly by “ pr o o f o f a su bjec ti ve in te nt to ki ll ,” bu t al so “ by ev id en ce of

co nd uc t whi ch is ‘reckl es s an d wan to n, an d a gr os s de vi at io n fro m a r e a so na bl e

st an da rd of care , of su ch a na tu re th at [ th e fact fin de r] is warra nt ed in in ferr in g th at

de fen da nt was aware of a se rio us ris k of de at h or se rio us bo di ly ha rm .’ ” See Uni te d

St at es v. Bl ack Elk , 5 79 F.2 d 49 , 5 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v

. Co x,

50 9 F .2d 39 0, 3 92 (D.C. Cir . 19 74 )).

Fren ch co nt en ds th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro u n d i ng Mayhu gh ’s de at h do no t

su pp or t th e di st ric t cou rt’s a pp li cat io n o f § 2 A1.1 (a) b ecau se th e ev id en ce from th e

m ed ic al m al pr act ic e cas e “ es ta bl is he d th e sh ot gu n in jury was co m

pl et e ly u nr el at ed

to th e cau se of M ay hu gh ’s dea th .” W e d is ag ree.

“Th e c r os s refe ren ce in § 2B 3.1 (c)( 1) to th e fir st de gr ee m ur de r gu id el in e i n § 2A1 .1 req ui res a se nt en ci ng co ur t to c o n s i d e r th e fu ll co nt ex t of th e de fen da nt ’s

o ffen se an d to acco un t fo r an y ki ll in g in th e co ur se of a fed eral ro bb ery

. . . . Th i s

-8

-pe rm it s se nt en ci ng co ns id erat io n of th e to ta l ex te nt of in jury infl ic te d u po n a nyon e
vi ct im iz ed by th e of

fen se .” Uni te d St at es v. W eas el Bea r, 35 6 F.3 d 83 9, 84 1 (8 th Ci r.

2 0 0 4)

. “ The la ng ua ge of § 2B 3.1 (c)( 1) is in te nd ed to en su re th at se nt en c e s f o r

ki ll in gs co m

m it te d in th e co ur se of a fed eral ro bb ery refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e real

of fen se co nd uc t an d p ro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se s.” Id

.

The di st ric t co ur t, ba se d up on a p r e p on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce— in cl ud in g

te st im on y fro m th e m ed ic al ex am in er th at co mp l ic at io ns fro m th e sh ot gu n wou nd

cau se d Mayhu gh ’s de at h an d a co nf li ct ing opi nio n fr om Fr en ch ’ s ex pe rt —det erm in ed

th e c i r c u ms t an ces of Mayhu gh ’s de at h qu al ifi ed Fren ch fo r § 2B 3.1 (c)( 1) ’s cro ss

refe ren ce fo r fir st -d eg ree m ur de r. In reac hi ng th at co nc lu si on , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d

Fren ch in te nt io na ll y an d m al ic io us ly “ sh ot to ki ll ” “ Mr. Mayhu gh wit h a sh ot gu n at

cl os e ran ge wit ho ut an y reg ard fo r Mr. Ma yh u g h’s li fe or well -b ei ng , an d th at Mr.
Mayhu gh cl earl y wou ld n ot ha ve be en ho sp it al iz ed an d wou ld no t ha ve be en face d

wit h th e co m

pl i c a t ed di ffi cu lt m ed ic al ci rcu m st an ces th at [le d to hi s de at h]

. . . wit ho ut Mr. Fren ch ’s act io ns .” W e de te ct no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n

of t h e c r o s s refe ren ce. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y “ co ns id er[e d] th e fu ll co nt ex t of
[Fre nc h’s] of

fen se ,” W eas el Bea r, 35 6 F.3 d at 84 1, acco un te d fo r “ th e to ta l ex te nt of ”
Mayhu gh ’s in

jury an d trag ic de at h, id

., an d ens ur ed Fren ch ’s sen te nc e refl ect ed th e

se rio us ne ss of i nt en ti on al ly sho ot in g M ay hu gh in su ch “ a d ead ly fash io n.”

B. Subs ta nti ve Reas on ab le nes s

In th e ab se nc e of si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r, we rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Feem st er, 57 2

F.3 d at 46 1. “ Su bs ta nt iv e a pp el la te rev ie w in se nt en ci ng cas es is na rro w an d

de fere nt ia l; it wil l be th e un us ua l ca s e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ce— whe th er wi th in , abo ve , or b el ow t he ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e—a s

-9

-s u b s t a n t i ve ly un reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Kell ey , 65 2 F.3 d 91 5, 91 8 (8 th Ci r

.

20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Feem st er, 5 72 F.3d at 4 64 ) (i nt ern al m ark s o m it te d)

.

“ The de ci si on t o i mpo se a co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce is al so rev ie wed fo r

reas on ab le ne ss si m il ar to an ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Be nt on , 62 7 F.3 d 10 51

, 10 55 -5 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )) (in te rn al m ark s om it te d)

. “ A

di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or , gi ve s
si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fa ct or , or c on si de rs on ly ap pr op ria te

fact or s bu t nev ert he le ss co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce

th at li es ou ts id e th e li m it ed ran ge of ch oi ce di ct at ed by th e fact s of th e cas e.” Uni te d

S t a t e s v. Jo ne s, 50 9 F.3 d 91 1, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ If th e de fen da nt ’s se nt en c e i s
wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , th en we m ay , bu t are no t req ui red to

, ap pl y a

pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss .” Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1 (q uo ti ng Gall

, 53 2 U.S.

at 51 ) (i nt ern al m ark s o m it te d)

.

Fren ch as se rts hi s se nt en ce was “ gr eat er t h a n n eces sa ry ” to sa ti sf y th e

se nt en ci ng go al s of § 35 53 (a) an d is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t

co ur t fai le d “ to acco rd an y weig ht to [h is ] y ou th

, rem or se , h i s t o ry of se ve re
de pr es si on , an d ex tre m el y di sa dv an ta ge d up br in gi ng .” The reco rd be l i e s Fren ch ’s

as se rti on

.

As no te d a bo ve , th e di st ric t co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered Fren ch ’s as se rte d

gr ou nd s fo r m it ig at io n an d was ev en m ov ed by Fren ch ’s m it ig at io n ev id en ce. Yet th e
di st ric t co ur t de t e r mi n e d th e se rio us na tu re an d “ ho rren do us ” ci rcu m st an ces of

Fr e n c h ’s cri m es an d hi s wil li ng ne ss “ to ki ll pe op le an d te rro riz e pe op le fo r a few

th ou sa nd d o ll ars ” no t on ly ou twei gh ed th e m it ig at in g fact or s, bu t al so warra nt ed a

se ve re se nt en ce to de te r su ch “ cal lo us ” co nd uc t an d pr ot ect so ci et y fro m Fren ch

. The

di st ric t co ur t fu rth er de ci de d Fren ch de m on st rat ed a la ck of rem or se an d an

un wil li ng ne ss to ta ke res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s act io ns by ev ad in g cap tu re fo r two -an d- aha lf y ears aft er Mayhu gh ’s de at h. Al t h o u g h th e co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces th e di st ric t

-1 0-co ur t im

po se d fo r Fren ch ’s va r i o u s c r im es un qu es ti on ab ly res ul t in a lo ng pr is on

te rm , th is lo ng te rm is no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le un de r th e tra gi c an d cal lo us ed

ci rcu m st an ces of F ren ch ’s cri m es

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fi nd in g n o e rro r, we affi rm Fren ch ’s con vi ct io n a nd sen te nc e.

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

-1 1-