# 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- 40 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.

Ri ck y Erne st Peep le s

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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 17
Fil ed : J an ua ry

2, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BEAM, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.Defen da nt Ri ck y Pe ep le s ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s im po si ti on of a 10 5- m on th 1

se n t e nc e fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty pl ea to on e co un t of Po ss es si on of Am m un it io n by a
Fel on in vi ol at io n o f 1 8 U .S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). Peep le s arg ue s th at th e
di st ric t co ur t er red when it : (1 ) fo un d th at hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on for att em pt ed m ur de r

was a cri m e of vi ol en ce; (2 ) ap pl ie d a fo ur -le ve l up ward de pa rtu re fro m hi s adju st ed

ba se of fen se le ve l; an d (3 ) im

po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce. W e affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

At 1: 00 a.m

. on Ja nu ary 2, 20 16

, of fic ers res po nd ed to a rep or t th at Peep le s was
sh oo ti ng a gu n aro un d hi s res id en ce. W he n of fic ers arri ve d, th ey t a lk ed to Ani ta

Kowa l s ky an d Neil Hem in ov er, Peep le s’s do wns ta irs ne ig hb or s. The y to ld th e

of fic ers th at th ey

ha d a rg ue d wi th Peep le s earl ie r in th e ev en in g. Th ey th en sh owe d

th e of fic ers bu ll et ho le s in Hem in ov er’s be dr oo m wall an d in di cat ed th at th e sh ot s ha d

co m e fro m

Peep le s’s u ps ta irs res id en ce.

The of fic ers no ti ced Peep le s l oo ki ng ou t t he win do w of h is ap art m en t. When

th ey wen t to sp eak wit h hi m , t he y no te d th at he was vi si bl y in to xi cat ed an d was no t

co m pl y in g wi th th ei r in st ru ct io ns . Office rs en te red Peep le s’s ap art m en t an d s aw, in
pl ai n vi ew, a .22 cal ib er bu ll et ne xt to Peep le s’s feet an d two m or e .22 cal ib er bu ll et s

on hi s bed

. Eve nt ua ll y , th e of fic ers di sc ov ered a .22 cal ib er revo lv er, thre e bo xe s of

.22 cal ib er am

un it io n, se ve ral sp en t .22 cal ib er sh el l cas in gs in th e ki tc he n tra sh can ,

an d 8 sp en t s he ll cas in gs in th e cylin de r of th e rev ol ve r.

Peep le s pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of Po ss es si on of Am m un it io n by a Fel on

. He

al so di d no t de ny th at hi s act io ns on th e ni gh t of hi s arre st co ns ti tu te d co m m is si on of

th e Cl as s “ D” fel on y o f I n t im id at io n wit h a Dan ge ro us W eap on un de r Io wa Co de

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-§ 70 8.6

. In cal cu la ti ng Peep le s’s ba se of fen se le ve l, th e di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e Prese nt en ce Rep or t’s (“ PSR ”) reco m m en da ti on t h a t P e ep le s’s pr ev io us co nv ic ti on in

I o w a f o r at te m pt ed m ur de r co ns ti tu te d a cri m e of vi ol en ce, th us gi vi ng hi m a ba s e

of fen se le ve l of 20 un de r § 2K2 .1(a )(4 ) of th e Uni te d St at es Sen te n c i ng Gui de li ne s (th e “ Gui del in es ”). The co ur t th en ad jus te d th e of

fen se le ve l up fo ur le ve ls un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) be cau se Peep le s us ed or po ss es se d a fir earm or amm u n i t io n in

co nn ect io n wit h an ot he r fel on y of fen se , he re In ti m id at io n wit h a Dan ge ro us W eap on

un de r Io wa Co de § 70 8.6

, rai si ng hi s of fen se le v e l t o 24

. The co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly

de du ct ed th ree le ve ls be cau se Peep le s acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y fo r th e of fen se , m ak in g

hi s t ot al off

en se lev el 21

.

H ow ev er , the co ur t fo un d th at th e fo ur -le ve l ad jus tm en t un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) di d

no t su ffi ci e n tl y acco un t fo r th e da ng ero us ne ss of Peep le s’s act io ns

. To ad eq ua te ly

acco un t fo r th is c on si de rat io n, th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d an ad di ti on al fo ur -le ve l

up ward de pa rtu re un de r § 5K2 .6, whi ch al lo ws fo r a su bs ta nt ia l se nt en ce in crea se fo r

th e us e of a weap on or da ng ero us in st r u ment al it y in th e co m m is si on of an of

fen se

. Thu s, th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at Peep le s’s of fen se le ve l was 25

, re s u l t i n g in an
ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge of 84 to 10 5 m on th s. The co ur t fo un d th at 10 5 m on th s was

th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce. The co ur t ad di ti on al ly st at ed t h at ba se d on th e fact or s se t

fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), it wou ld ha ve fo un d th at 10 5 m on th s was an ap pr op ria te

se nt en ce re ga rd le ss of t he ba se off en se lev el cal cu la ti on

.

II . Crime of Vi ol ence

Peep le s fir st ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at at te m pt ed m ur de r un de r

Io wa Co de § 70 7.1 1 (1 99 1) is a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(A), m ak in g hi s
b a s e o ffen se le ve l a 20

. W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n an d

ap pl ic at io n of th e G u i d e l i ne s an d it s de te rm in at io n of whe th er an of fen se is a cri m e

of vi ol en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ric e, 81 3 F .3d 70 4, 7 05 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

-3

-Und er § 2K2 .1(a )(4 ), th e b as e o ffen se lev el is 20 if “ th e d efen da nt co m m it te d

an y pa rt of th e in st an t of

fen se su bs eq ue nt to su st ai ni ng on e fel on y co nv ic ti on of ei th er
a cri m e o f vi ol en ce or a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se .” A “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r § 2K2 .1(a )(4 ) “h a s th e m ean in g gi ve n th at te rm in § 4B 1.2 (a).” USSG § 2K2 .1,

co m m en t. (n .1). A “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” is de fin ed in pa rt as “ an y of fen se un de r fed eral

or st at e la w, pu ni sh ab le by im pr is on m en t for a te rm ex ceed in g on e y ear, th at

. . . ha s

as a n e l e ment th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e

pe rs o n of an ot he r.” USSG § 4B 1.2 (a). Ph y si cal fo rce un de r th e Gui de li ne s is

“ ‘vio le nt fo rce,’ m ean in g ‘force cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or in jury to an ot he r

pe rs on .’ ” Ri ce, 813 F.3 d at 70 5 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 69 0 F.3 d 10 56

, 10 67 (8t h C ir.2 01 2) ).

W he n det erm in in g whet he r a pr io r co nv ic ti on was fo r a cri m e of vi ol en ce, we

m us t fir st co ns id er whe th er th e st at ut e vi ol at ed is di vi si bl e or in di vi si bl e. Id

. If th e

st at ut e is “ di vi si bl e in th at it en co m pa ss es m ul ti pl e cri m es , so m e of whi ch are cri m es

of vi ol en ce an d so m e of whi ch a re no t, we ap pl y a m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch .”

Id

. W e ex am in e “ th e ch arg in g do cu m en t, pl ea co ll oq uy, an d co m pa rab le jud ic ia l

reco rd s” to de te rm in e “ whi ch pa rt of th e st at ut e th e de fen da nt vi ol at ed ,” an d th en we

“ de te rm in e whe th er a vi ol at io n of th at st at ut or y s u bp art is a cri m e of vi ol en ce.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. If th e st at ut e is in di vi si bl e, “ se t[t in g] ou t a si ng le

. . . se t of el em en ts to de fin e a si ng le cri m e,” Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43

, 22 48 (2 01 6)

, “ we ap pl y a cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

, lo ok in g to th e el em en ts of th e of fen se

as de fin ed in th e

. . . st at ut e of co nv ic ti on rat he r th an to th e fact s un de rlyin g th e
de fen da nt ’s pr io r co nv ic ti on ,” Ri ce, 81 3 F.3 d at 70 5 (al te rat io n in th e or ig in al )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Dawn, 6 85 F.3d 79 0, 7 94 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) ).

In 19 91

, Peep le s was co nv ic te d un de r Io wa Co de § 70 7.1 1 (1 99 1)

, whi ch st at es :

[a] pe rs on co m

m it s a cl as s ‘B’ fel on y whe n, wit h th e in te nt to cau se th e de at h of an ot he r pe rs on an d no t un de r ci rcu m st an ces whi ch wou ld jus ti fy

-4

-th e pe rs on ’s act io ns , th e pe rs on do es an y act by whi ch th e pe rs on ex pe ct s

to se t in m ot io n a fo rce or ch a i n o f e v e n t s whi ch wil l cau se or res ul t in
th e d eat h o f th e o th er p ers on

.

Thi s st at ut e on ly en co m

pa ss es on e se t of el em en ts fo r th e si ng le of fen se of at te m

pt ed

m ur de r; th us , it is in di vi si bl e, an d we ap pl y th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

. See Rice

, 81 3

F.3 d a t 7 05

.

In ex am in in g th is st at ut e, we ha ve no tro ub le fin di ng th at th e di st ric t co u r t

co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at at te m pt ed m ur de r un de r th e Io wa st at ut e co ns ti tu te s a cri m e

of vi ol en ce fo r th e pu rp os es of § 2K 2.1 (a)( 4)

. Peep le s arg ue s th at th e st at ut e

cat eg or ic al ly fai ls to qu al ify as a cri m e of vi ol en ce be cau se it co nt ai ns th e ph ras e “ an y

act ,” whi ch is to o br oa d

. Usi ng an ex am pl e of a care -g iv er fai li ng to pr ov id e

su st en an ce to a de pe nd en t, he cl ai m s th a t so m eo ne co ul d be co nv ic te d un de r th e

st at ut e wit ho ut us in g, at te m pt in g to u s e, or th reat en in g to us e ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t

an ot he r pe rs on

. He arg ue s th at th e car e

- g i v e r , un de r th at sc en ari o, ha s co m m it te d a
cri m e of om is si on , whi ch do es no t req ui re fo rce, an d if th e care -g iv er ha d th e req ui si te

in te nt

, he c o u l d b e co nv ic te d un de r th e Io wa st at ut e. The refo re, Peep le s co nt en ds

,
at te m pt ed m ur de r can no t be a cri m e of vi ol en ce be cau se fo rce is no t an el em en t of th e

of fen se

.

In Uni te d St at es v

. R i c e , we ad dr es se d a si m il ar arg um en t. The de fen da nt

arg ue d th at un de r an Ark an sa s ba tt ery st at ut e a pe rs on co ul d “ cau se an in jury wit ho ut

us in g ph y si cal fo rce, fo r ex am pl e, by of feri ng hi s vi ct im a po is on ed dr in k.” 81 3 F.3 d

at 70 6. W e no te d th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Uni te d St at es v. Cas tl em an co ns id ered

th is arg um en t wi th reg ard to an ass au lt st at ut e. Id . There th e Su pr em e Co ur t h el d:

[t]he “ us e of fo rce” in [th e d efen da nt ’s] ex am pl e is no t th e act of

“ sp rin kl [in g]” th e po is on ; it is t h e a c t of em pl oyin g po is on kn owi ng ly

as a de v i c e t o cau se ph y si cal ha rm

. Tha t th e ha rm oc cu rs in di rect ly,

rat he r th an di rect ly (as wit h a ki ck or p un ch ), do es no t m at te r.

-5

-Uni te d St at es v. Cas tl em an , 13 4 S. Ct

. 14 05

, 14 15 (2 01 4) ( t h i r d a l t erat io n in th e

or ig in al ). The Su pr em e Co ur t fu r t he r fo un d th at it was “ im po ss ib le to cau se bo di ly

in jury w it ho ut ap pl y in g fo rce i n t he co m m on -la w sen se .” Id . Accor di ng ly, we he ld

in Ri ce th at th e de fen da n t ’s b a t t e r y co nv ic ti on was a cri m e of vi ol en ce an d th at

in di rect ha rm fro m po is on in g a dr in k st il l req ui red th e us e of fo rce. 81 3 F.3 d at 70 6.

In li ne wit h th es e de ci si on s, we ho ld th at Io wa Co de § 70 7.1 1 (1 99 1) ha s as an
el em en t th e u se or a tt em

pt ed us e of fo rce. The ph ras e “ an y act by wh ic h th e pe rs on

ex pe ct s to se t in m ot io n a fo rce o r ch ai n of ev en ts ” wou ld in cl ud e om is si on s as Peep le s a r g u e s

. Howev er, th e st at ut e st il l req ui res th e us e of fo rce, sa ti sf y in g th e
vi ol en t fo rce req ui rem en t un de r th e Gui de li ne s. In Peep le s’s ex am pl e of a care -g iv er

refu si ng to feed a de pe nd en t, it is th e act of wit hh ol di ng fo od wit h th e in te nt to cau se

th e de pe nd en t to st arv e to de at h th at co ns ti tu te s th e us e of fo rce. See Cas tl em an , 13 4

S. Ct

. at 14 15

. It do es no t m at te r th at th e ha rm o c c u r s i nd ire ct ly as a res ul t of

m al nu tri ti on

. See id

. Bec au se it is im po ss ib le to ca u s e b o d i l y i nju ry wit ho ut fo rce,

it wou ld al so be im

po ss ib le to cau se de at h wit ho ut fo rce. Thu s, an at te m pt to cau se
de at h wo ul d a ls o re qu ire th e u se or a tt em pt ed us e o f fo rce.

II I. Upw ar d Depa rtur e fro m Ba se Offe ns e Lev el

Nex t, we co ns id er whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t e r r e d by ap pl y in g a fo ur -le ve l

up ward de pa rtu re fro m Peep le s’s to ta l of fen se le ve l un de r § 5K2 .6, rai si ng hi s of fen se
le ve l fro m 21 to 25

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ de ci si on to de pa rt up ward on th e
ba si s of a pe rm is si bl e fact or

. . . fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Don el so n,

45 0 F.3 d 76 8, 77 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s f act ua l fin di ng s

su pp or ti ng de pa rtu re fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Tjaden

, 47 3 F.3 d 87 7, 87 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 07 ).

Peep le s fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si o n t h a t he ta rg et ed hi s

n e ig hb or ’s be dr oo m was cl earl y erro ne ou s be cau se th e reco rd la ck s su ffi ci en t

-6

-ev id en ce to pr ov e th at P e e p l e s kn ew th e sh ot s he fir ed wou ld en te r Hem in ov er’s

be dr oo m or ev en th at he kn ew whe re the be dr oo m was

. Cl ear erro r oc cu rs whe n th e
di st ric t co ur t’s fi nd in g i s “ (1 ) no t s up po rte d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce; (2) ba se d u po n

an erro ne ou s vi ew of th e la w; or (3 ) su ch th at ‘w e are le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d fir m

co nv ic ti on th at an erro r ha s be en m ad e.’” Ph el ps -Ro pe r v. Ri ck et ts

, 86 7 F.3 d 88 3, 89 0
(8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Sawh en y v. Pi on eer Hi-B red In t’l, In c., 93 F.3 d 14 01

, 14 07

- 08 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6) ).

The di st ric t co ur t ci te d to un co nt es te d fact s in th e PSR th at

, aft er arg ui ng wit h

hi s do wns ta irs ne ig hb or s , P e e p l es fir ed a gu n fro m hi s up st ai rs ap art m en t in to hi s
do wns ta irs ne ig hb or ’s be dr oo m

. The co ur t no te d th at it was 1: 00 a.m

. whe n Peep le s

fir ed th e sh ot s. The di st ric t co ur t is co rrec t th at m os t pe op le are in th ei r be dr oo m s at

1: 00 a.m ., a nd Peep le s wou ld ha ve kn own th at hi s ne ig hb or s were ho m e be cau se he

ha d arg ue d wit h th em earl ie r in th e ev en in g. Fu rth erm or e, th e PSR in di cat es th at th ere

were se ve ral bu ll et h ol es in Hem in ov er’s be dr oo m wall

, an d it is no t di ffi cu lt to

be li ev e th at Pe e p l e s k n e w he was fir in g in to th e be dr oo m si nc e he li ve s in th e

ap ar t men t di rect ly ab ov e Hem in ov er an d Kowal sk y an d ha d in te ract ed wit h th em

. Bas ed on th is in fo rm at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Peep le s ta rg et ed hi s

ne ig hb or ’s bed ro om . Becau se th e di st ric t cou rt’s fact ua l co nc lu si on s ar e su pp or te d
by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d we are no t le ft wit h a de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at an

erro r ha s be en m ad e, we fin d th at th e di st ric t c o ur t di d no t cl earl y err in co nc lu di ng

th at Peep le s t arg et ed Hem in ov er’s b ed ro om

.

Peep le s th en arg ue s th a t t he di st ric t co ur t en ga ge d in do ub le co un ti ng by

de pa rti ng up ward fou r le ve ls un de r § 5 K2.6 be cau se he ha d alre ad y rece iv ed a fo ur

le ve l ad jus tm en t u nd er § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B) th at fu ll y acco un te d fo r hi s fe lo ny con du ct

of di sc ha rg in g t he gu n in hi s apa rtment. “ Dou bl e co un ti ng oc cu rs if ‘ on e pa rt of th e
Gui de li ne s is ap pl ie d to in crea se a de fen da nt ’s pu ni sh m en t on acco u n t o f a ki nd of

ha rm th at ha s al read y be en fu ll y acco un te d fo r by ap pl ic at io n o f a n ot he r pa rt. ’”

-7

-Don el so n, 45 0 F.3 d at 77 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hip en be ck er, 11 5 F.3 d 58 1, 58 3

(8 th Cir . 19 97 )).

In Uni te d S ta te s v . Don el so n, t he de fen da nt was c on vi ct ed of b ei ng a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Id

. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e de fen da nt us ed a fir earm

in co nn ect io n wit h th e Io wa of fen se of In ti m id at io n wit h a Dead ly W eap on

. Id

. The

co u r t ap pl ie d a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(5 ) fo r us e of a fir earm in

co nn ect io n wit h a fel on y of fen se an d de pa rte d up ward an ad di ti on al two le ve ls un de r § 5K2 .6 “ be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv ed a reas on ab ly fores eeab le an d s ub st an ti al ris k

of de a t h o r b od il y in

jury to m ul ti pl e vi ct im s.” Id

. at 77 2. The de fen da nt ap pe al ed

, cl ai m in g th at th e di st r i c t c o ur t ha d en ga ge d in im pe rm is si bl e do ub le co un ti ng by

de pa rti ng up ward th e ad di ti on al two le ve ls

. Id

. at 77 4. W e affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t,

ho ld i n g th at th e ki nd s of ha rm un de rlyin g th e de pa rtu res were no t id en ti cal be cau se

on e ha rm was th e us e of th e fir earm an d th e ot he r h a r m w as th e su bs ta nt ia l ris k to

m ul ti pl e v ic ti m s o f de at h o r bo di ly inju ry . Id.

In Uni te d St at es v. Po rte r, th e de fen da nt al so rece iv ed a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t

un de r § 2K2 .1 fo r us e of a fir earm in co nn ect io n wit h a fel on y o f f e n s e , a s well as a

se ve n

- l e v e l en ha nc em en t un de r § 5K2 .6 fo r fir in g a hi gh -p owe red weap on in to th e
vi ct im ’s ho m e. 40 9 F.3 d 91 0, 91 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The de fen da nt ap pe al ed

, arg ui ng

th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de pa rti ng up ward se ve n le ve ls un de r § 5K2 .6 fo r fir in g

a weap on in to th e vi ct im ’s ho m e be cau se th at was fu ll y acco un te d fo r in th e fo ur -le ve l

en ha nc em en t. Id

. at 91 7. We affi rm ed th e di st ric t cou rt’s sen te nc e, ho ld in g th at th e
ad di ti on al se ve n- le ve l en ha nc em en t was ap pr op ria te be cau se th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t

was in cred ib ly dan ge ro us an d c ou ld ha ve ki ll ed th e v ic ti m . Id. at 91 8.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e fo ur -le ve l ad jus tm en t un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )

ap pl ie d, an d ad di ti on al ly de pa rt ed upw ar d four le ve ls un de r § 5K2 .6 be cau se Peep le s’s

act io ns of fir in g a gu n in to hi s ne ig hb or s’ ap art m en t an d ta rg et in g th e be dr oo m were

“ un be li ev ab ly d an ge ro us ” an d th e ad di ti on al fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t was ne ces sa ry

-8

-to acco u n t f

o r t h e ex te nt to whi ch Peep le s en da ng ered hi s ne ig hb or s. Fo ll owi ng

Don el so n an d Po rte r, we fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t en ga ge in do ub le co un ti ng

. The ha rm acco un te d fo r un de r th e § 2K2 .1(b )(6 ) ad jus tm en t, to whi ch Peep le s di d no t

ob ject, is th e us e of a fir earm in co nn ect io n to th e fel on y of fen se of In ti m id at io n wit h

a Dan ge ro us W eap on un de r Io wa Co de § 70 8.6

. The ha rm acco un te d fo r un de r th e §

5K2 .6 up ward de pa rtu re is th e in cred ib le th reat o f se rio us in jury or de at h to

Hem in ov er an d Kowal sk y

. Bec au se th e en ha nc em en ts acco un t fo r two di st in ct ha rm s,

we ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ap pl y in g an ad di ti on al f o ur -le ve l

en ha nc em en t u nd er § 5K2 .6.

IV. Sub st an tiv e Rea so na bl enes s o f the S ente nce

Our fin al co ns id erat io n is whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce o f 10 5 m on th s
is su bs ta ntive ly un reas on ab le

. W he n rev ie win g a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce fo r su bs ta nt iv e

un reas on ab le ne ss , we ap pl y a hi gh ly de fere nt ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd

. Uni te d

S t a t es v. Fo rd

, 70 5 F.3 d 38 7, 38 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). The di st ric t co ur t ha s br o a d

di sc ret io n in weig hi ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s whe n im po si ng a se nt en ce. Id

.

The di st ric t cou rt un eq ui vo cal ly st at ed th at it co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s
whe n se nt en ci ng Peep le s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co ur t he ld th at al l of th e fact or s co m bi ne d,

pa rti cu la rly Peep le s’s cri m in al hi st or y an d th e na tu re of th e of fen se , cau se d th e co ur t

to im po se th e 10 5 m on th se nt en ce. See § 35 53 (a). Add it io na ll y , th ro ug ho ut th e

se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e refe ren ces to th e se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se

an d th e ne ed to fu ll y acco un t fo r th e da ng ero us ne ss of Peep le s’s act io ns

. The weig ht

th at th e co ur t ga ve Peep le s’s c r i mi n a l h i st or y an d th e na tu re of th e of fen se whe n
de te rm in in g Peep le s ’s se nt en ce was well wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n;

th eref or e, we fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n an d Peep le s’s

se nt en ce i s n ot su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . See Fo rd , 70 5 F .3d at 3 89

.

-9

-V. Concl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

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

-1 0-