# 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- 10 71

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

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.

Tim ot hy M. Kirl in

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: Jan ua ry

9, 2 01 7

Fil ed : J un e 1 2, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , GRUENDER and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

A W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri gr an d jury ret ur ne d an in di ct m en t ch a r g i ng

Tim ot hy Kirl in wit h co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 1,0 00 or m or e gr am s of he ro in an d so m e

am ou nt of co cai ne

, in vi ol at io n of 2 1 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A); be in g a fel on

in po ss es si on of an ex pl os iv e de v i c e

, i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 84 2( i)( 1)

,

84 4( a)(1 ); an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt to d is tri bu te an d di st rib ut io n of he ro in

, in

vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(c)

.A t a jury tri al th e Uni te d St at es in tro du ced ev id en ce th at Kirl in an d hi s co

co ns pi rat or s co nd uc te d a he ro in di st rib ut io n op erat io n in th e Kan sa s Cit y

, Mi ss ou ri

area sp an ni ng a p e r i od of te n y ears

. Dur in g th is ti m e Kirl in an d ot he rs wou ld

reg ul arl y tra ve l to Tex as to ob ta in si gn ifi can t qu an ti ti es of he ro in an d ot he r dr ug s fo r

di st rib ut io n. In Mar ch of 20 02

, on e of Kirl in ’s cu st om ers

, Jo sh ua W eb b, ov erd os ed

an d di ed aft er ta ki ng he ro in su pp li ed by Kirl in

. Kirl in w a s p r e s e nt in W eb b’s

ap art m en t at th e ti m e o f W eb b’s d eat h a nd , whi le ot he rs att em pt ed to rev iv e Webb

,

K i r l i n co nc eal ed dr ug s an d m ari juan a pl an ts

. The m ed ic al ex am in er te st ifi ed t h a t

W eb b wo ul d h av e li ve d h ad he no t i ng es te d h ero in

.

Kirl in ap pe ared at th e jury tri al pr o se wit h th e Fed eral Pu bl ic Defen de r as

st an db y co un se l. Kirl in m ad e no op en in g st at em en t or cl os in g arg um en t an d di d no t

cro ss -ex am in e th e go ve rn m en t’s wit ne ss es

. K irl in pr es en te d no wit ne ss es or ot he r

ev id en ce in hi s de fen se

, an d he m ad e n o mo t i on to acq ui t at th e cl os e of th e

go ve rn m en t’s cas e. The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t of gu il ty a s t o each co un t of th e

in di ct m en t an d, in a sp eci al ve rd i c t f o r m, f o un d th at Jo sh ua W eb b wou ld no t ha ve

di ed bu t fo r hi s i ng es ti on of h ero in di st rib ut ed by K irl in

.

At se nt e n c i n g

, th e go ve rn m en t rep res en te d th at Kirl in ha d be en pr ev io us ly

co nv ic te d of two dr ug -rel at ed fel on ie s an d th eref or e was su bjec t to a m an da to ry li fe

se nt e n ce on th e co ns pi racy co un t pu rs ua nt to 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A). The

pr es en te nc e rep or t at tri bu te d be twee n fo ur an d fiv e ki lo gr am s of h e r o i n to th e

co ns pi racy an d it di d no t reco m m en d a red uc ti on in th e Gui de li ne s of fen se le ve l fo r

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. Kirl in ’s Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge was de te rm in ed

to be 29 2 to 36 5 mo n t hs an d Kirl in was se nt en ced to li fe im pr is on m en t on th e

co ns pi racy co un t, 12 0 m on th s im pr i s o n m en t on th e fel on in po ss es si on of an

ex pl os iv e de vi ce co un t, an d 36 0 m on th s i m pr is on m en t o n each of th e se ve n co un ts

of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e an d di st rib ut io n of he ro in

. The se nt en ces were

or de red to run co nc ur ren tl y wit h e ach ot he r.

-2

-Kirl in ap pe al ed an d, aft er th e fil in g of Kirl in ’s o pe ni ng br ie f, we gr an te d th e

go ve rn m en t’s un op po se d m ot io n to rem an d th is cas e to th e d i s t ric t co ur t fo r

res en te nc in g be cau se

, acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t, Kirl in ’s two pr io r dr ug -rel at ed

fel on y co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld ha ve be en co un te d as on e c o n v i c t i on un de r 21 U.S.C.

§ 84 1( b) (1 )(A). On rem an d, at th e be gi nn in g of th e se co nd se nt en ci ng he ari ng

, Kirl in

m ad e a l e n g th y st at em en t ch al le ng in g th e juri sd ic ti on of th e di st ric t co ur t, th e

au th or it y of th e Uni te d St at es Att or ne y

, an d th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e ag ai ns t hi m

. The

di st ric t co ur t 1 fo un d th at as a res ul t of am en d m en ts to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s,

effe ct iv e on Nov em

be r 1, 20 14

, whi ch al te red th e dr ug qu an ti ty ta bl e u n d e r U SSG

§ 2D1 .1, th e ba se of

fen se le ve l was r e d u c e d b y t wo le ve ls an d th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s ran ge was red uc ed to 23 5 to 29 3 m on th s. The di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward

an d se nt en ced Kirl in to 36 0 m on th s o n t he co ns pi racy co un t, 12 0 m on th s on th e

e x p lo si ve de vi ce co un t, an d 36 0 m on th s on each of th e rem ai ni ng co un ts

, wit h th e

se nt en ces to run co nc ur ren tl y . Kirl in ag ai n a pp eal s.

Kirl in as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r in fai li ng to fu rth er

red uc e th e ba se of

fen se le v e l by two le ve ls fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y un de r

USSG § 3 E1

. 1

, fai li ng to pr op erl y co ns id er th e se nt en ci ng fact or s se t fo rth in 18

U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), an d fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e se nt en ce. He fu rth er co nt en ds

th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

.

“ I n rev ie win g a ch al le ng e to a se nt en ce, we m us t fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co m

m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r.

. . . If we di sc ov er no pr oc ed ur al

erro r, we th en co ns id er 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 un de r

a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd .” Uni te d St at es v. Tim be rla ke

, 67 9 F.3 d

10 08

, 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ In

rev ie win g a se nt en ce fo r si g n i f i c a n t p ro ced ur al erro r, we rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es

1 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

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-3

-de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Bryant

, 60 6 F.3 d 91 2, 91 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Howev er, “ [i]f

a de fen da nt fai ls to t i mel y o b j ect to a pr oc ed ur al se nt en ci ng erro r, th e erro r is

fo rfei te d a n d may o n l y be rev ie wed fo r pl ai n erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Ph el ps

, 53 6

F.3 d 8 62 , 86 5 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

The di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed th e pr es en te nc e rep or t’s reco m m en da ti on to de ny

an acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y red uc ti on in th e of fen se le ve l. Kirl in di d no t req ue st

an acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ad jus tm en t no r di d he ob

ject to th e di s t r i c t co ur t’s

fai lu re to ap pl y an acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y red uc ti on

. The refo re, un de r pl ai n

erro r rev ie w, Kirl in “ m

us t sh ow (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d an erro r, (2 ) th e erro r

is cl ear or ob vi ou s, an d (3 ) th e erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Uni te d St at es v.

W hi te Bu ll

, 64 6 F.3 d 10 82

, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Eve n if th es e el em en ts are sh own

,

we “ wil l on ly rev ers e if th e erro r ‘seri ou sl y affe ct [s ] th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic

rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Je an -Gu erri er

, 66 6 F.3 d 10 87

,

10 91 (8 t h C i r

. 20 12 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Pu ck et t v. Uni te d St at es

, 55 6

U.S. 12 9, 1 35 (20 09 )).

K i r l i n c on te nd s th at un de r USSG § 3E1 .1 th e di st ric t co ur t was req ui red t o

red uc e h is off

en se lev el for acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y be cau se “ he di d n ot hi ng to

ch al le ng e th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e ag ai ns t hi m ” at tri al

. Fu rth er, Kirl in as se rts th at he

de cl in ed to pl ead gu il ty an d wen t to tri al on ly be cau se hi s att or ne y m is le d hi m as to

th e se nt en ce he wou ld face if he pl ed gu il ty an d “ be cau se th e go ve rn m en t’s on ly pl ea

of fer was co nt in ge nt on th e gu i l t y pl ea of a co -d efen da nt ” who de cl in ed to pl ead

gu il ty.

USSG § 3E1 .1(a ) pr ov id es : “ If th e de fen da nt cl earl y de m on st rat es acce pt an ce

of res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s of fen se

, de crea se th e of

fen se le ve l by 2 le ve ls .” Am on g th e

fact or s whi ch m ay be co ns id ered in de te rm in in g whe th er a de fen da nt qu al ifi es fo r th is

red uc ti on are th e de fen da nt ’s “ tru th fu ll y ad m it ti ng th e co nd uc t co m pr is in g th e

of fen se (s ) of co nv ic ti on [;] ” “v o lu nt ary te rm in at io n or wit hd rawal fro m cri m in al

co nd uc t or as so ci at io ns ;” “ vo lu nt ary p ay m en t of r es ti tu ti on pri or to ad jud ic at io n of

-4

-gu il t; ” “ vo lu nt ary su rren de r to au th or it ie s pr om pt ly aft er co m

m is si on of th e of

fen se ;”

“ vo lu nt ary as si st an ce to au th or it ie s in th e reco ve ry of th e fru it s an d in st ru m en ta li ti es

of th e of fen se ;” “ vo lu nt ary res ig na ti on fro m th e of fic e or po si ti on he ld d u r i n g th e

co m m is si on of

th e o ffen se ;” “ po st -o ffen se reh ab il it at iv e effo rts ( e.g

. , co un se li ng or

dr ug tre at m en t); ” an d “ th e ti m el in es s of th e de fen da nt ’s c on du ct in m an ife st in g t he

acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y .” USSG § 3 E1.1 , com m en t. (n .1).

“ [T]he di st ric t co ur t i s i n a un iq ue po si ti on to ev al ua te acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y

, [an d] we wil l no t di st ur b a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to de ny or gr an t th e

red uc ti on un le ss th at de ci si on is cl earl y erro ne ou s.” Uni te d St at es v. W al te r

, 62 F.3 d

10 82

, 10 83 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 9 5 ) (p er cu ria m ); se e al so USSG § 3E1 .1, co m m en t. (n .5).

The de fen da nt be ars th e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

, Uni te d

St at es v. Gon zal ez

, 78 1 F.3 d 42 2, 43 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al

of an acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ad jus tm en t wil l be rev ers ed on ly if th e de ci si on “ is

so cl earl y erro ne ou s as to be wit ho ut fou nd at io n[ ,] ” Uni te d St at es v. Ade jum o , 7 72

F.3 d 51 3, 53 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y a d

ju s tm en t “ is no t in te nd ed to ap pl y to a de fen da nt who pu ts th e

go ve rn m en t to it s b u r d e n o f pr oo f at tri al by d en y in g th e es se nt ia l fact ua l el em en ts

of gu il t, is co nv ic te d, an d on ly th en ad m it s gu il t an d ex pr es se s re mo r s e

. ” U SSG

§ 3 E1.1 , com m en t. (n .2).

W e fin d th at Kir l i n h a s no t sh own th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d, m uc h le ss

pl ai nl y erre d, in de cl in in g to red uc e hi s of fen se le ve l fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

.

Kirl in di d no t ta ke an y of th e act io ns id en ti fie d in th e co m m en ta ry to USSG § 3E1 .1

as rel ev an t to th e di st ric t co u r t ’s de ci si on wit h res pe ct to th e acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y ad

jus tm en t. Fu rth er, he “p u t [] t he go ve rn m en t to it s bu rd en of pr oo f

at tri al .” Id

. W hi le “ [c]on vi ct io n by tri al

. . . do es no t a u t o mat i c a l ly pr ecl ud e a

de fen da nt fro m co ns id erat io n fo r su ch a red uc ti on ,” th is is no t on e of th os e “ rare

si tu at io ns [wh ere] a de fen da nt m ay cl earl y de m on st rat e an acce p t a n c e o f

res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s cri m in al co nd uc t ev e n t h o u g h he ex erci se s hi s co ns ti tu ti on al

rig ht to a tri al .” Id

. Su ch a rare si tu at io n m ay ari se “ whe re a de fen da nt go es to tri al

-5

-to as se rt an d pr es erv e is su es th at do no t rel at e to fact ua l gu il t ( e.g

. , to m ak e a

co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to a st at ut e or a ch al le ng e to th e ap pl ic ab il it y of a st at ut e to

hi s co nd uc t).” Id

.

Ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. McKi nn ey

, 15 F.3 d 84 9 (9 th Ci r. 19 94 ), Kirl in im pl ie s

th at in th es e ci rcu m st an ces hi s ex erci s e o f t h e rig ht to tri al sh ou ld no t ex cl ud e hi m

fro m co ns id erat io n fo r th e acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y red uc ti on

. He as se rts th at bu t

fo r be in g “ m is le d b y

hi s at to rn ey

as t o t he sen te nc e h e was faci ng if h e p le d g ui lt y ”

an d th e go ve rn m en t’s co nd i t i o n i n g a n y pl ea of fer on th e gu il ty pl ea of hi s co

de fen da nt

, he wou ld ha ve waiv ed jury tri al an d en te red a gu il ty pl ea. He al so po in ts

ou t t ha t h e p res en te d n o d efen se at t ria l.

McK i n n e y i s no t on po in t. In McKi nn ey

, th e de fen da nt co nf es se d aft er hi s

arre st

, as si st ed po li ce, atte m pt ed to pl ead gu il ty be fo re tria l bu t was reb uf fed by th e

di st ric t co ur t, exp res se d rem or se at tri al

, an d was con tri te at hi s sen te nc in g hea rin g.

Id

. at 85 2- 53

. Kirl in

, ho wev er, ha s ne ve r acce pt ed res p o n s ib il it y fo r hi s cri m in al

co nd uc t an d di d no t at te m pt to pl ead gu il ty. Rat he r, du rin g a n d aft er tri al Kirl in

as se rte d th at hi s pr os ecu ti on was a frau d pr act ic ed up on hi m an d t h a t t h e t r ut h was

be in g co nc eal ed

, an d in hi s st at em en t to th e di st ric t co ur t at se nt en ci ng he co nt en de d

th at he is th e vi ct im of “ m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on ” an d th at “ fri vo lo us ev id en ce” was

pr es en te d to th e jury. In su m

, Kirl in ’s act io ns an d st at em en ts be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t

are no t co ns is te nt wit h th e Gui de li ne s req ui rem en t th at he “ cl e a rly de m on st rat e an

acce pt an ce of r e s p o n s ib il it y fo r hi s cri m in al co nd uc t.” USSG § 3E1 .1, co m m en t.

(n .2). W e th eref

or e fin d no pl ai n erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e acce pt an ce

of res po ns ib il it y

off en se lev el red uc ti on

.

Kirl in al so co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr o c e du ral erro r by

fai li ng to co ns id er th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s and fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n

it s reas on s fo r va ry in g up ward to 36 0 m on th s fro m th e Gui de li ne s sen te nc in g ran ge

of 23 5 to 29 3 m on th s. “ Pro c e d u r a l e r r o r s in cl ud e

. . . ‘fail in g to co ns id er th e

§ 35 53 (a) fact or s .

. . or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce-i nc lu di ng

-6

-an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui d e l i n e s ran ge .’ ” Uni te d St at es v.

W il li am s

, 62 4 F.3 d 88 9, 89 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es

, 55 2 U.S.

38

, 51 (2 00 7) ). Aga in

, Kirl in fai le d to ob ject to th es e al le ge d pr oc ed ur al erro rs an d,

a c c o rd in gl y

, we rev ie w hi s co nt en ti on s fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Gray

, 5 3 3

F.3 d 94 2, 94 5 (8t h Cir. 20 08 ) (Where th e de fen da nt fai ls to “ ob ject at sen te nc in g to

th e ad eq ua cy of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n or co ns id erat io n of § 35 53 (a),

. . . we

rev ie w hi s o bjec ti on on ap pe al for pl ai n e rro r.”).

A rev ie w of th e reco rd of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng rev eal s th at th e di st ric t co ur t

ex pr es sl y co ns id ered se ve ral of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d th ei r ap pl ic ab il it y to Kirl in ’s

c a s e an d ex pl ai ne d th at

, “ ta ki ng al l of th e st at ut or y fact or s in to co ns id erat io n

, ” a

se nt en ce wit hi n th e Gui de li ne ran g e w a s “ no t su ffi ci en t to m eet th e st at ut or y

co ns id erat io ns ” t h a t t h e c o ur t co ns id ered

. W e ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld th at th e

se nt en ci ng jud ge ne ed no t m en ti on each § 35 53 (a) fact or in ex pl ai ni ng th e se nt en ce

whe re, as he re, “ we are sat is fie d, in co nt ex t, tha t th e di st ric t ju dg e . . . was aware of

th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d ad eq ua te l y co ns id ered th em in se le ct in g an ap pr op ria te

se nt en ce.” Id

. at 94 6; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Krzy zan ia k

, 70 2 F.3 d 10 82

, 10 85 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ The co ur t’s ex pl an at io n is su ffi ci en t if th e se nt en ci ng reco rd ta ke n as a

who le de m on st rat es th at th e co ur t co ns id e r e d th e rel ev an t fact or s.”)

. W e co nc lu de

th at th e d is tri ct co ur t co m m it te d n o p ro ced ur al erro r.

Fi na l ly, Kirl in co nt en ds hi s se nt en ce of 36 0 m on th s is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w th e 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. Uni te d St at es v. Lon g So ld ie r

, 43 1 F.3 d 11 20

, 11 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ ‘A

di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s d is cret io n wh en it (1) fai ls to co ns id er a re le va nt fact or th at

sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ; (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er

or irr el ev an t fact or ; or (3 ) co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e

fact or s co m

m i t s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t.’” Uni te d St at es v. Bo rro m eo

, 65 7 F.3 d

75 4, 75 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng 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 )).

-7

-The di st ric t co ur t ha d be fo re it th e up da te d pr es en te nc e rep or t an d he ard th e

arg um en ts of

fere d by K i r l i n

. It m en ti on ed th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s fo cu si ng on “ th e

na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se [,]” th e ne ed to “ refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e

of fen se [an d]

. . . pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e la w,

. . . aff o r d a de qu at e de te rren ce to

cri m in al co nd uc t[,] .

. . pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er c r im es [an d] .

. . pr ov id e th e

de fen da nt wit h ne ed ed

. . . co rrec ti on al tre at m en t.” 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1)

, (2 ). W e

co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce im po se d in th is c a s e w a s n o t an ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Uni te d St at es v. Bo y ki n , 8 50 F.3 d 98 5, 98 8 (8 th Cir . 20 17 ) (p er cu ria m ) (aff irming

th e di st ric t co ur t’s up ward va ria nc e whe re th e co ur t ga ve i n c r e a s e d weig ht to

pa rti cu la r § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s)

.

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

.

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

-8

-