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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 23 54

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

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.

Mi ch ael L. Chad wick

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: May 18, 2 01 8
Fi le d: Aug us t 9 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Mi ch ael Ch ad wick ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t's im po si ti on of 62 m on th s' 1

im pr is on m en t fo ll owi ng Ch ad wick 's gu il ty pl ea to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a

The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.fir earm

in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). He cla im s t he co ur t's

up ward va ria nc e fro m t h e s u g g e st ed Gui de li ne s ran ge of 30 to 37 m on th s is

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm.

On ap pe al

, Ch ad wick do es no t di sp ut e th e un de rlyin g fact s. In de ed

, he was a
fel on i n p o s s e s si on of a fir earm an d he pl ead ed gu il ty t o th at ch arg e. In Decem be r

20 15

, of fic ers wit h th e In de pe nd en ce, Mi ss ou ri, Po li ce Dep art m en t were cal le d to a
lo cat io n to in ve st ig at e a rep or t of two su sp ic io us m al es , on e o f who m was carr y in g

a rif le cas e. W he n th e of

fic ers arri v e d

, t h e y ob se rv ed two m en , on e of who m was
Ch ad wick

, st an di ng ne xt to a ba ck pa ck

, a b i c yc l e , an d a bl ue rif le cas e. W he n

of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed th e two m en , C ha dwi ck ran , b ut was de ta in ed aft er a b rie f fo ot

ch as e. Afte rward

, of

fic ers le a r n e d th at Ch ad wick an d th e ot he r m al e ha d act iv e

warra nt s and th ey arre st ed bo th m en

. In th e bl ue rif le cas e was a Ja pa ne se Ty pe 99

, 7.7 m m cal ib er rif

le

, whi ch Ch ad wick ad m it te d was hi s. Ch ad wick st at ed he pl an ne d

to se ll th e rif

le be cau s e h e n e e d e d m on ey

. He al so ad m it te d th at he kn ew he was

pr oh ib it ed fro m

po ss es si ng th e ri fle be cau se he was a co nv ic te d fe lo n.

At th e ti m e Ch ad wick en te red hi s pl ea, th e di st ric t co ur t or de red a pr es en te nc e

in ve st ig at io n. The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) su gg es te d a ran ge of 30 to

37 m on th s' im

pr is on m en t ba se d on a Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on wit h a to ta l of fen se le ve l

of 12 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI. The rep or t r e v e a l s a le ng th y li st of

co nv ic ti on s and arre st s for C ha dwi ck sp an ni ng ag es 16 to 39 . Cha dwi ck arg ue s on

ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t r e l i e d u p on an im pr op er fact or at se nt en ci ng –t ha t

Ch ad wick ha d elev en ch il dr en an d n ev er m arri ed –a nd th at co m

m en ti ng on th is fact

was an im

pr op er va l u e ju d g ment by th e co ur t reg ard in g Ch ad wick 's m or al s. He

a d d i t i on al ly arg ue s th e co ur t co m m it te d a cl ear erro r in jud gm en t in weig hi ng t h e

se nt en ci ng fact or s as it di d, arg ui ng th at th e co ur t im pr op erl y st art ed it s an al y si s wit h

th e st at ut or y m ax im

um of te n y ears as it s gu id ep os t, rat he r th an th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

of 30 to 37 m on th s , a n d g a ve on ly pa ss in g th ou gh t to th e va lu e of Ch ad wick 's

co op erat io n wi th law en fo rcem en t.

-2

-Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce us in g a

de fer e n t i a l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. Uni te d St at es v. W at ers , 88 3 F.3 d 10 22

, 10 28 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 8 )

. " Abu se of di sc ret io n oc cu rs if th e di st ric t co ur t 'fai ls to

co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th a t s h o u ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

, gi ve s

s i gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , or co ns id ers o n l y t h e

ap pr op ria t e f

act or s bu t co m

m it s a cl ear erro r [o f] jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e

fact or s.'" Uni te d S ta te s v . Rei d, 8 87 F.3d 43 4, 4 38 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8) (qu ot in g Un it ed

St at es v. Co ok

, 69 8 F.3 d 66 7, 67 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). "If a di st ric t co ur t va rie s be y on d

th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , we co ns id er th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e bu t 'gi ve du e de fere nc e

t o t h e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on th at th e [1 8 U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a w h o l e , jus ti fy th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e.'" W at ers , 88 3 F.3 d at 10 28 (q uo ti ng Ferg us o n v.
Uni te d S ta te s, 6 23 F.3d 62 7, 6 31 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ).

At se nt en ci ng th e di st ric t co ur t fo cu se d on Ch ad wick 's cri m in al hi st or y , whi ch

in cl ud ed a de m on st rat ed an d rep eat ed di sr es pe ct fo r th e la w, an d a la ck of de te rren ce

fro m co m m it ti ng cri m es ba se d on se rv in g pr ev io us se nt en ces fo r co nv ic ti on s. Bas ed

on th is hi st or y , a nd rev ie win g th e Gui de li ne s be nc hm ark be fo re it

, th e co ur t

im m ed ia te ly ack no wled ge d th at th e su gg es te d Gui de li ne s se nt en ce was no t in

co ns id erat io n. Howev er, also ba la nc in g t he req ui si te fact or s, the co ur t add it io na ll y

no te d th at it li ke wis e di d no t co ns id er th e st at ut or y m ax im um of 10 y ears ap pr op ria te gi ve n Ch ad wick 's co op erat io n wit h th e go ve rn m en t an d th e fact th at he to ok

res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s act io n s

. C h a d wick arg ue s th at th e co ur t's m en ti on of th e 32

-

m on th se nt en ce res ul ti ng fro m hi s m os t rece nt fel o n y co nv ic ti on de m on st rat es th at

th is fact or was th e dr iv in g fo rce b e hi nd th e co ur t's an al y si s an d th e co ur t erre d in

rel y in g u po n i t as a ba si s fo r va ry in g up ward in th e in st an t case

. W e d is ag ree. Th e

co ur t in cl ud ed it s di sc us si on of th at pa rti cu la r se nt en ce as pa rt of a le ng th y di sc us si on

reg ard in g Ch ad wick 's cri m in al hi st or y an d pa rti cu la rly hi s la ck of res pe ct fo r th e le ga l

pr oc es s g en eral ly. W e fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e co ur t's an al y si s bas ed on a

care fu l re ad in g o f th is sen te nc in g c ol lo qu y

.

-3

-It is cl ear fro m th e tra ns cri pt th at Ch ad wick 's ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st or y , th e

ch arac te ris ti cs of

th is off en se in li gh t o f al l o f hi s p rev io us of fen se s, and th e co ur t's

de si re to de te r C h a d wick fro m hi s de m on st rat ed reci di vi st be ha vi or weig he d th e
he av ie st of al l fact or s. The co ur t st at ed th at th os e fact or s, al on e, fu ll y warra nt ed th e

im po si ti on of a st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce in th is cas e. It was on ly up on th e co ur t's

co ns id erat io n of th e rem ai ni ng § 35 53 (a) fact or s th at th e co ur t arri ve d at th e im po se d

62 -m on th se n t en ce, a ba la nc in g of th e req ui si te fact or s th e di st ric t co ur t is fu ll y

eq ui pp ed to m ak e. "Di st ric t co ur ts en joy wid e la ti tu de whe n ap pl y in g th e se nt en ci ng

fact or s in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d are free to 'as si gn so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an

ot he rs .'" W at ers , 88 3 F.3 d at 10 28 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. C h a v a r r i a-Ort iz

, 82 8

F.3 d 6 68 , 67 2 (8 th Cir . 20 16 )).

As to th e co ur t's m en ti on of Ch ad wick 's el ev en ch il d r e n, read in co nt ex t, th e

co ur t's refe ren ce was in res po ns e to Ch ad wick 's focu s o n h is "reg ul ar co nt act " wi th

hi s ei gh t-year-o ld da ug ht er, w h o m Ch ad wick wan te d to ge t ho m e to

, an d whi ch

Ch ad w i c k a r g u ed was a m it ig at in g fact or he re warra nt in g a le ss er se nt en ce. The

co ur t, reas on a b ly, cl ari fie d by way of a qu es ti on to Ch ad wick 's co un se l th at th ere
were el ev en ch il dr en , no t o ne

. Tha t th e co ur t fo un d th e nu m be r "re m ark ab le " do es

no t ev in ce a jud gm en t on Ch ad wick 's m or al it y or rel ia nc e on an im pe rm is si bl e fact or

in it s ul ti m at e se nt en ci ng an al y si s. In de ed

, th at di sc us si on to ok pl ace ou ts id e of th e

co ur t's reci ta ti on of it s pr on ou nc em en t of it s rea s o n s s u p po rti ng th e se nt en ce

im po se d.

Th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in arri vi ng at th e 6 2

- mo n t h

se nt en ce. We affir m

.

__

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

-4

-