## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __

No. 1 1- 32 06

__

__ __ __ __

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

. Bo y d Wil li am

W hi te Twin

, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: May 18, 2 01 2
Fi le d: Ju ne 27 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Bo y d W il li am W hi te Twin pl ed gu il ty to as sa ul t wit h a da ng ero us weap on , in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 11 3( a)(3 ). Se e al so 18 U.S.C. § 1 1 5 3 (es ta bl is hi ng juri sd ic ti on ov er of

fen se s co m

m it te d by In di an s wit hi n In di an co un try). The di st ric t

co ur t se nt en ced h i m to 84 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d by th ree y ears ’ 1

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. On app eal

, W hi te Twin ch al le ng es hi s sen te nc e arg ui ng th at th e
di st ric t co ur t im

pr op erl y gr an te d de pa rtu res th at were alre ad y ad eq ua te ly ta ke n in to

co ns id erat io n by th e Gui de li ne s and were no t su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. W hi te Twin

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es B. Korn m an n, Un it ed Sta te s Di st ric t J ud ge for th e 1
Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.al so ob

jects to th e si x m on th s ad de d to hi s se nt en ce fo r sm il in g at se nt en ci ng

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws an up ward de pa rtu re, if ob jecte d- to

, fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Gal l v. Uni te d S

ta te s , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7) (“ Reg ard le ss of wh et he r th e se nt en ce

im po se d is in si de or ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , th e ap pe ll at e co ur t m us t rev ie w th e

se nt en ce un de r an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. ”) ; U ni te d St ate s v. V asqu ez , 552 F.3 d

73 4, 73 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d de pa rtu res un de r fo u r s e p a r a t e
Gui de li ne s: U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .3— cri m in al hi st or y in ad eq u a cy ; § 5K2 .3— ex tre m e

ps y ch ol og ic al in

jury; § 5K2 .8— ex tre m e co n du ct ; an d, § 5K2 .21 —d is m is se d an d

un ch arg ed co nd uc t.

Und er § 4A1 .3, a di st r i c t co ur t m ay de pa rt up ward “ [i]f rel ia bl e in fo rm at io n

in di cat es th at th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y subs ta nti al ly unde r- re pr es en ts

th e se rio us ne ss of th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y or th e li ke li ho od th at th e de fen da nt

wil l com m it ot he r cri m es .” The di st ric t cou rt m ay lo ok to pr io r se nt en ces th at were

no t us ed in cal cu la ti ng th e cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y , i n c l u d in g se nt en ces fo r tri ba l

of fen se s. Unit

ed St at es v. Ki ng , 62 7 F.3 d 32 1, 32 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), qu ot in g U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1 .3(a )(2 )(A)

. In th i s cas e, th e pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ) li st ed W hi te Twin ’s

ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st or y in th e t r i b a l c o u r t s. W hi le he di d no t di sp ut e th e PSR’s

de ta il s, W hi te Twin ob

jects to th e di st ric t c o u rt’s su a sp on te ap pl ic at io n of th e

en ha nc em en t. He cl ai m s th at t h e Gov ern m en t— whi ch m ad e a pl ea ag reem en t to

r e c o mm en d a Gui de li ne se nt en ce— ret ai ns th e bu rd en of pe rs ua si on on se nt en ci ng
de pa rtu res

. D i s t ric t co ur ts

, ho wev er, m ay us e th ei r di sc ret io n to im po se an

e n h a n cem en t su a sp on te

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Mi lt on , 1 53 F.3 d 89 1, 89 7 (8 th Ci r

. 19 98 )

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de pa rti ng fro m th e Gui de li ne s

un de r § 4 A1.3

.

Und er § 5K2 .3, a di st ric t co ur t m ay de pa rt up ward if a vi ct im su ffer s

“ ps y c h o l o g i cal in

jury m uc h m or e se rio us th an th at no rm al ly res ul ti ng fro m

-2-co m

m is si on of t h e o ffen se .” Su ch ps y ch ol og ic al in jury o ccu rs “ on ly wh en th ere is

a su bs ta nt ia l im

pa irment of th e in te ll ect ua l, ps y ch ol og ic al

, em ot io na l, or be ha vi or al

fu nc ti on in g of a vi ct im

, whe n th e im pa irment is li ke ly to be of an ex te nd ed or

c o n ti nu ou s du rat io n, an d whe n th e im pa irment m an ife st s it se lf by ph y si cal o r

ps y ch ol og ic al sym

pt om s by ch an ge s in be ha vi or pa tt ern s.” U.S.S.G. § 5K 2.3

. Dis tri ct co ur ts m

us t exam in e th e na tu re of the def en da nt ’s co nd uc t to de te rm in e th e

li ke ly sco pe of h arm

. Id

.

W hi te Twin

, ag ai n, di d no t ob ject to th e PSR’s fin di ng s, or to th e te st im on y at

se nt en ci ng

. He arg ue s th at be cau se th e fact ua l ba si s fo r hi s § 5K2 .3 en ha nc em en t is

in th e PSR an d th e te st im on y of on e v i c t i m, it is no t su ffi ci en tl y ba se d on fact ua l

fin di ng s su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Fa wb us h

, 94 6 F.2 d 58 4, 58 6
(8 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (fi nd in g th at an y de pa rtu re fro m t h e Gui de li ne s “ m us t be ba se d on

fact ua l fi nd in gs su pp or te d b y th e rec or d” ).

To su pp or t hi s argu m en t, W hi te Twin ci te s Uni te d St at es v. Ca mmis an o , 91 7

F.2 d 10 57 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ), ho ld in g th at th e PSR’s f a c t s w e re no t su ffi ci en tl y

co rro bo rat ed to su pp or t an up ward de pa rtu re. Tha t case

, ho wev er, is dif fere nt fro m

W hi te Twin ’s. Cam m is an o ob jecte d to th e PSR’s al le ga ti on s. Ca m m is an o , 91 7 F.2 d

at 10 60

. Als o, th e PSR th ere reco m m en de d an up ward d e p art ur e ba se d on th e

al le ga ti on th at Cam m is an o was in vo lv ed wit h La Co sa Nos tra

, wit ho ut reco un ti ng

sp eci fic act s. Id

. W hi le th e Gov ern m en t at te m pt ed to bu tt res s th is reco m m en da ti on

wit h te st im on y of cri m es in he ren t to La Co s a N os tra

, it of fere d no ev id en ce th at

Cam m is an o ha d co m

m it te d sp ec i f

i c Maf ia -rel at ed cri m es

. Id

. at 10 62

. In W hi te

Twin ’s cas e, un ob

jecte d- to all eg at io ns are co rro bo rat ed by spe ci fic tes ti m on y

.

The PSR’s fin di ng s, by th em se lv es , m ay pr ov id e en ou gh fact ua l su pp or t fo r a
de pa rtu re. If a de fen da nt do es no t ob ject to th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s in a PSR, th ey m ay

be acce pt ed as tru e fo r pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng

. Unit ed St at es v. Paz

, 41 1 F.3d 90 6,

90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ Fact s pr es en te d in a PS R a r e d e e med ad m it te d un le ss th e

-3-de fen da nt ob jects to th os e fac ts .”); Unit ed Sta te s v. Y

ah nk e , 39 5 F .3d 82 3, 82 5 n.2
(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ [The d efen da nt ] ad m it [te d] th e vi ol at io ns oc cu rred

, bo th by no t

ob jecti ng to th e [PSR ] an d in hi s br ie f to th is co ur t.”) ; Unit ed St at es v. Bo ug ie

, 27 9

F.3 d 64 8, 65 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ In in st an ces w h e n a d e f en da nt ha s no t ob

jecte d to ‘spe ci fic fact ua l al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d in th e PSR, a di st ric t co ur t m ay acce pt th e fact s

as tru e fo r pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng ,’ ” qu ot in g Unit ed St at es v. Y ou ng , 27 2 F.3 d 10 52

, 1 0 5 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). Here, th e PSR de ta il s th e cri m e in qu es ti on , rel a t i n g h o w

W hi te Twin as sa ul te d hi s co m pa ni on at ho m e, in fro nt of th ei r ch il dr en (al l of who m

were un de r ni ne ). The PSR ex pl ai ns th at W hi te Twin ’s vi ol en t act s cau se d hi s
ch il dr en t o try to in te rv en e on be ha lf of th ei r m ot he r, bu t th ey were as sa ul te d

th em se lv es

. The PSR rel a t e s h o w he vi ol en tl y an d rep eat ed ly th reat en ed hi s

co m pa ni on , t el li ng he r to ch oo se whi c h c h il d he sh ou ld ki ll fir st —an ex ch an ge th e
ch il dr en li ke ly he ard

. The PSR de sc rib es ho w th is ev en t cau se d th e ch il dr en ex tre m e

ps y ch ol og ic al di ffi cu lt ie s req ui rin g co un se li ng

. The se sp eci fic fin di ng s su ffi ci en tl y

su pp or t an up ward d e p a r tu re, an d are al so co rro bo rat ed by te st im on y

. The di st ric t

co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ep art in g fr om th e Gui de li ne s u nd er § 5K2 .3.

Und er § 5K2 .8, a di st ric t co ur t m ay de pa r t “[i ]f th e de fen da nt ’s c on du ct was

un us ua ll y he in ou s, cru el

, br ut al

, or de gr ad in g to th e vi ct im .” Exa m pl es o f su ch

ex tre m e co nd uc t in cl ud e “ to r t ur e of a vi ct im

, gr at ui to us in fli ct io n of in jury, or

pr ol on gi ng of p ai n o r hu m il ia ti on .” Id

.

W hi te Twin di sp ut es th is de pa rtu re, cl ai m in g h i s act s were no m or e ex tre m e

th an t h o se co nt em

pl at ed by th e Gui de li ne s. The Gui de li ne s al read y im po se an

“ ag gr av a t ed as sa ul t” ba se -o ffen se le ve l, a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th e us e of a

weap on , a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r bo di ly i nju ry , a nd a two -le ve l en h a n cem en t

be cau se W hi te Twin ’s 8- y ear- ol d an d 7- y ear- ol d were vu ln erab le vi ct i m s. W hi te

Twin cl ai m s t h a t t h e b as e-o ffen se le ve l an d th es e en ha nc em en ts fu ll y cap tu re th e

na tu re o f hi s o ffen se . Howev er, “ if a fact or in cl ud ed in th e ap pl ic ab le [G]uid el in es

an d ad jus tm en ts is pr es en t to a de g r e e s u b st an ti al ly in ex ces s of th at whi ch is

-4-or di na ril y in vo lv ed in th e of fe n s e , an up ward de pa rtu re wil l be up he ld .” Unit ed

St at es v. Cl ar k

, 45 F.3 d 12 47

, 12 52 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ); U.S.S.G. § 5K 2.0

. The re can be

no do ub t t ha t W hi te Twin ’s ex tre m e an d in hu m an e co nd uc t bo th ph y si cal ly an d

ps y ch ol og ic al ly ha rm ed hi s vi ct im s. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d “ th at
[ Wh i t e Twin ’s] co nd uc t was un us ua ll y he in ou s, cru el

, br ut al an d de gr ad in g to th e
vi ct im an d t o t he li tt le ch il dr en ,” ex pl ai ni ng th at

t h i s i sn 't a si tu at io n whe re [ ] on e ga ng [is ] fi gh ti ng an ot he r on e in th e
st reet or so m et hi ng

. Nor is it a si tu at io n whe n two m al es are fig ht in g an d

on e go e s ov erb oa rd

, us es a kn ife or so m et hi ng

. Thi s is hi s fam il y , hi s

c h i ld ren

. And I -- I th in k, as I sa id

, th at th is is ou tra ge ou s. Ph y si cal l y
gr ab bi ng th e on e ch il d by th e th ro at an d th ro win g hi m on th e co uc h, th at is ou tra ge ou s. That th e m ot he r --t ha t th e ch il dr en are tryin g to pr ot ect th ei r m ot he r an d th is Defen da nt co nt in ue s to be at he r up an d th en br in gs

ou t th e k n i f

e a nd th reat en s th em -- th reat en s al l of th es e pe op le

. The y were l uc ky to e sc ap e.

The di st ric t co ur t d i d n o t a bu se it s di sc ret io n in fin di ng th at W hi te Twin ’s c on du ct

was su ffi ci en tl y

ex tre m e to warran t a § 5K2 .8 d ep art ur e.

Und er § 5K2 .21

, a di st ric t co ur t m ay im po se an up ward de pa rtu re fo r di sm is se d

or un ch arg ed co nd uc t, in or de r to “ refl ect th e act ua l se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se ,” ba se d

on co nd uc t un de rlyin g a ch arg e di sm is se d as pa rt of a pl ea ag reem en t whi ch di d no t

ot he rwis e en te r in to th e de te rm in at io n of th e Gu i d e l i n e ran ge

. W hi te Twin arg ue s

th at hi s di sm is se d of

fen se s sh ou ld no t ha ve be en co ns id ered be cau se th e Gui de li ne s

ex ceed th ei r co ng res si on al m an da te by al lo win g th e co ns id erat io n of un ch arg ed an d

di sm is se d of

fen se s, an d be cau se su ch a de pa rtu re pr om ot es di sr es pe ct fo r th e la w.

In su m , he arg ue s th at a “ se nt en ce im po se d by th e co ur t sh ou ld no t be un reas on ab ly

hi gh un de r al l th e ci rcu m st an ces of th e cas e an d sh ou ld no t di ffer su bs ta nt ia ll y fro m

th e se nt en ce gi ve n to a no th er si m il arl y si tu at ed de fen da nt co nv ic te d of a si m il ar

of fen se .”

-5-W hi te Twin ’s arg um en t ig no res se tt le d la w. “ A se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay rel y

up on di sm is se d ch arg es in fas hi on in g a re ason ab le se nt en ce.” Unit ed St at es v. Az ur e , 53 6 F.3 d 92 2, 9 32 -3 3 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ A d is m is se d ch arg e m ay

ev en be rel ie d u po n i f it was di sm is se d as part of a pl ea agre em en t in th e cas e.” Id

.

W hi te Twin ’s arg um en t— th at a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce “ no t be un reas on ab ly

hi gh un de r al l of th e ci rc ums ta nc es ” no r “ di ffer su bs ta nt ia ll y fro m th e se nt en ce gi ve n

to an ot he r si mil ar ly si tu at ed de fe nd an t co nv ic te d of a si m il ar of fen se ”—a ct ua ll y

su pp or ts th e 5K2 .21 de pa rtu re i n th is cas e. The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e
di sm is se d of

fen se s to de te rm in e th e sp eci fic ci rcu m st an ces an d si tu at io n of th e
de fen da nt an d th e of

f e ns e. The ba se -o ffen se le ve l an d it s en ha nc em en ts di d no t

en co m pa ss th e se rio us ne ss of th e co nt ex t of th e of fen se s he re. The di st ric t co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ep art in g u nd er § 5K2 .21

.

Fi na ll y , at s e n t e n c in g, th e di st ric t co ur t in it ia ll y im po se d a se nt en ce of 78

m on th s. Afte r he pr on ou nc ed th at se nt en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at W hi te Twin

was “ sm il in g.” The co ur t th en im po se d an ad di ti on al si x m on th s, st at in g th at th e 84

m on th s’ se nt en ce is ba se d up on §§ 5K2 .21

, 5K2 .3, 5K2 .8, th e “ [p ]sy ch ol og ic al

in jury, un us ua l cru el ty, to rtu re, an d ot he r reas on s li st ed by th e pr ob at io n of fic er in th e

pr es en te nc e rep or t,” a nd W hi te Twin ’s di sm is se d c ha rg es

.

W hi te Twin cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t cou rt abu se d it s di sc ret io n by co ns id eri ng

an im pr op er fa ct or

–h is sm il e. Thi s cou rt rev ie ws the su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of

a se nt en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Unit ed St at es v. Fee m st

er , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it “ gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im

pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ” in se nt en ci ng

. Unit ed St at es v. Wi ll ia m s , 62 4 F .3d 88 9, 8 96 -9 7 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

-6-The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by in crea si ng W hi te Twin ’s

se nt en ce by si x m on th s aft er he sm il ed

. The co ur t was un iq ue ly si tu at ed to ob se rv e 2

hi s de m ean or , an d pe rs on al ly ch arg ed wit h rev ie win g th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Dis tri ct

co ur ts ha ve wid e di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g a fai r an d jus t se nt en ce. Se e Unit ed St at es

v. Gan t

, 66 3 F.3 d 10 23

, 10 29 -3 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). A di st ric t co ur t m ay co ns id er a

de fen da nt ’s at ti tu de an d de m ean or whe n ex erci si ng it s se nt en ci n g d i sc ret io n. Se e

Unit ed St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 66 2 F

. 3 d 1 02 8, 10 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Co ng res s ha s

pr ov id ed th at “ [n ]o li m it at io n s h a l l be pl aced on th e in fo rm at io n co nc ern in g th e
ba ck gr ou nd

, ch arac te r, an d co nd uc t of a pe rs on co nv ic te d of an of fen se whi ch a co ur t

of th e Uni te d St at es m ay rece iv e an d co ns id er fo r th e pu rp os e of im po si ng an

ap pr op ria te se nt en ce.” 18 U.S.C. § 36 61

. The di st ric t co ur t ba se d it s in crea se in th e

se nt en ce no t so le ly on th e sm il e, bu t a c o mb i n a ti on of it an d ot he r fact or s. The

di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n c on si de rin g Whi te Twin ’s sm il e.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

The Gov ern m en t cl ai m s th at rev ie w sh ou ld b e f o r pl ai n erro r. The 2
Gov e r n m en t ig no res th at W hi te Twin

, hi m se lf, im m ed ia te ly res po nd ed

, “ I am no t

sm il in g,” aft er th e jud ge sa id

, “ You th in k th at ’s hu m or ou s, si r? Let th e reco rd sh ow th at th e Defen da nt is sm il in g.” Thi s su ffi ci en tl y al ert ed th e co ur t to th e ob jecti on , as de m on st rat ed by th e co ur t’s ex pl an at io n of th e se nt en ce gi ve n. Se e Unit ed St at es v. St ac ey , 53 1 F.3 d 56 5, 56 7- 68 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ [P]r e s e r v i n g an is su e is a m at te r of

m ak in g a ti m el y ob

jecti on to th e t r i a l c o u rt an d cl earl y st at in g th e gr ou nd s fo r th e ob jecti on , so th at th e tr ia l co ur t h as an op po rtu ni ty to pr ev en t or corre ct th e erro r in
th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e.”) (c it at io ns om it te d)

.

-7-