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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 1- 31 40

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

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 lt on James Mes te th

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 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Rap id Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 17, 2 01 2
Fil ed : Au gu st 6, 2 01 2 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

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

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.Mi lt on Ja m es Mes te th ap pe al s hi s 60 -m on th se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t

co ur t. W e aff

irm. 1

I.

On Se p t em

be r 19

, 20 10

, Mes te th

, who was 27 y ears of ag e, pi ck ed up th ree ju v e ni le s an d dr ov e th em to th e m ob il e ho m e res id en ce of on e of th e juv en i l e ’s

fo rm er gi rlf

rie nd s wit h who m th e juv en il e ha d b een arg ui ng . Mes te th an d al l th ree

of th e juv en il es were he av il y in to xi cat ed

. Fi nd in g no on e at th e ho m e, th e fo ur be ga n

ran sa ck in g th e res id en ce and st eal in g va rio us it em s. At so m e po in t, th e di sg ru nt le d
juv en il e as ke d Mes te th fo r a li gh te r, Mes te th ha nd ed a li gh te r to hi m , an d th e juv en il e

se t fir e to th e res id en ce. Mes te th ad m it te d he was aware th e juv en il e in te nd ed to se t 2

th e f ire

. Onc e th e fir e be ga n, Mes te th an d th e th ree juv en il es fle d th e sc en e. The

m ob il e h om e was co m

pl et el y de st ro y ed by the fir e.

The go ve rn men t in di ct ed Mes te th on th ree co un ts : ars on an d ai di ng an d

ab et ti ng ars on , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 81 ( C o u n t 1 ) ; fir st de gr ee
bu rg la ry /a id in g a nd ab et ti ng , in vi ol at io n of So ut h Dak ot a Co di fie d Law § 22 -3 1- 1

an d 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Co un t 2) ; an d po ss es si on of a st ol en fir earm /a id in g an d ab et ti ng , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 92 2( j), an d 92 4( a)(2 ) (Co un t 3)

. Mes te th en te red in to

a pl ea ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t whe rei n he ag reed to pl ead gu il ty to Co un t 1,

an d th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to dr op Co un ts 2 an d 3. The go ve rn m en t al so ag reed th at

it wou ld reco m

m en d a se nt en ce at th e bo tt om of th e ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s

ran ge

.

The Hon or ab le Je ffre y L. Vik en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct

1

of So ut h Dak ot a.

Acco rd in g t o t he juv en il e, Mes te th st art ed th e fi re. 2

-2

-The pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 21 a n d a

Cat eg or y I cri m in al hi s t o r y b a s ed on zero cri m in al hi st or y po in ts

, res ul ti ng in a

se nt en ci ng ran ge of 37 to 46 m on th s. Neit he r Mes te th no r th e go ve rn m en t ob jecte d

to th e PSR. At se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t reco m m en de d a se nt en ce at th e lo w en d

of th e ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge , as ob li ga te d un de r th e pl ea ag reem en t.

Mes te th req ue st ed a do wnwar d de pa rtu re or a do wnwar d va ria nc e to pr ob at io n. The

go ve rn m en t o p p o s e d Mes te th ’s req ue st

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed bo th th e

go ve rn m en t’s an d Mes te th ’s r e q u e s ts

. In st ead th e di st ric t co ur t de pa rte d up ward

un de r Uni te d St at e s Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l, §5 K2.2 1, whi ch

al lo w s f o r u pwa rd de pa rtu res fo r di sm is se d an d un ch arg ed co nd uc t, an d se nt en ced

Mes te th to 60 m on th s of im pr is on m en t, th e st at ut or y m ax im um , to be fo ll owe d by 5

y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The co ur t st at ed th at

, al te rn at iv el y , it wou ld ha ve va rie d

up to th e 6 0- m on th sen te nc e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a).

II.

In th is ap pe al

, Mes te th rai se s two arg um en ts

. Fi rs t, he cl ai m s th at hi s se nt en ce
is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . Seco nd , h e arg ue s th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to m eet it s
ob li ga ti on in th e pl e a a g r e e men t to reco m m en d a se nt en ce at th e lo w en d of th e

Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge

.

A.

W e rev ie w cl ai m s of su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Uni te d S ta te s v . Bla ck , 67 0 F .3d 87 7, 8 82 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) . “ A

se nt en ci ng co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it fai ls to co ns id e r a rel ev an t fact or th at

sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht , gi ve s s ig ni fic an t wei gh t t o a n i m pr op er o r

irr el ev an t fact or , or co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t com m it s a cl ear erro r

of jud gm en t in wei g h i n g t ho se fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. W at so n, 48 0 F.3 d 11 75

, 11 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). “ ‘[I] t wil l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t

-3

-se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge —as

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le .”’ Uni te d Stat es v. Sh ul er, 598 F.3 d 44 4, 44 7 (8t h Cir.)
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc )), cert

. de ni ed , 13 0 S . Ct. 3 43 6 (2 01 0)

.

Mes te th arg ue s th at hi s 60 -m on th se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. He

cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve weig ht to th ree im pr op er fact or s: (1 ) Mes te th ’s s ta tu s

as an ad ul t, (2 ) th e di sm is se d ch arg es , an d (3 ) th e ne ed to se nd a m es s a g e t o e f fect

po li cy ch an ge s o n t he Pin e Ri dg e Res erv at io n.

Mes te th arg ue s th at be cau se th e Gui de li ne s are on ly ap pl ic ab le to ad ul ts , t he

co ur t’s jus ti fic at io n fo r im po s i n g t h e 60 -m on th se nt en ce be cau se Mes te th was an
ad ul t was im

pr op er. Mes te th m is read s th e di st r i c t c o u rt’s refe ren ce to hi s st at us as

an ad ul t. The di st ric t co ur t si m pl y em ph as iz ed th at Mes te th was se ve ral y ears ol de r

th an th e juv en il es in vo lv ed in th e of fen se , was a Trib al le ad er, an d sh ou ld ha ve be en

a b e t te r ro le m od el

. Am on g th e fact or s to be co ns id ered are “ th e na tu re an d

ci rcu m st an ces of th e of

fen se an d th e hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti c s of th e de fen da nt .”

18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1)

. Mes te th ’s ag e in co m pa ris on to th at of t he ot he rs in vo lv ed

an d hi s st at us in th e co m m un it y are th e so rt of fact or s th e co ur t m ay co ns id er in

im po si ng th e se nt en ce.

Nex t, Mes te th arg ue s th at th e di sm is se d ch arg es of bu rg la ry an d po ss es si on of

a st ol en fir earm do no t refl ect an y gr eat er se rio us ne ss to th e ars on o ffen se

. The

di st ric t co ur t n o t e d t ha t, be cau se th os e ch arg es were dr op pe d, no co ns id erat io n fo r

th os e of fen se s was gi ve n whe n de te rm in in g th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge

. The co ur t

fo un d th at th e bu rg la ry an d fir earm of fen se s were rel ev an t to th e ov eral l se rio us ne ss

of th e of fen se an d sh ou ld be co ns id ered in de te rm in in g th e se nt en ce. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 35 53 (a)( 2) (A) (d is tri ct co ur t sh al l co ns id er ne ed fo r se nt en ce to refl ect se rio us ne ss

of of fen se ). The di st ric t co ur t “ ha s wid e la ti tu de ” in de te rm in in g th e weig ht to gi ve

se nt en ci ng fact or s, an d we f i n d h e r e th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e th at

-4

-di sc ret io n in co ns id eri ng th e di sm is se d offe ns es

. See Uni te d Stat es v. Brid ge s, 56 9

F.3 d 3 74 , 37 9 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

Th i r d

, Mes te th cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e 60 -m on th se nt en ce t o

“ se nd a m es sa ge ” ab ou t po li cy de ci si on s on th e Pi ne Ri dg e Res erv at io n. Dur in g th e

se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t reco gn iz ed th at Tr i b a l au th or it ie s ha d bu il t a ne w la w

en fo rcem en t cen te r in st ead of a ch em ic al de pe nd en cy cen te r. The co ur t st a te d,

“ Tho se are po li cy de ci si on s I can ’t do an y th in g ab ou t.” The n th e co ur t st at ed

, “ W ha t

I can do so m et hi ng ab ou t is try to se nd so m e ki nd of m es sa ge .” Mes te th arg ue s th at

th es e st at em en ts su gg es t th at th e co ur t was se ek in g to in vo ke po li cy ch an ge s th ro ug h

hi s se nt en ce. Aga in

, Mes te th m is read s th e co ur t’s co m m en ts

. Fo ll owi ng th e se co nd

st at em en t, th e di st ric t co ur t e x p l a i ne d th at Mes te th se rv ed in a le ad ers hi p an d

te a c h i n g ro le in th e Trib e an d Mes te th ’s se nt en ce “ ha s to be a de te rren t” to si m il ar
cri m in a l a c ti vi ty. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (B) (s en te nc e sh ou ld affo rd ad eq ua te

de te rren ce t o c riminal co nd uc t).

Mes te th ha s no t sh own th e di st ric t cou rt com m it te d an abu se of di sc ret io n by

fai li ng to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si g n i f i c a n t weig ht

, gi vi ng si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , or co ns id eri ng on ly th e

ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it ti ng a c l e a r e rro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e

fact or s. The refo re, we do no t fin d Mes te th ’s se nt en ce to be su bs ta n t i ve ly

un reas on ab le

.

B.

Nex t, Mes te th arg ue s th e go ve rn m en t, w h il e te ch ni cal ly co m pl y in g wit h it s
ob li ga ti on to reco m

m en d a se nt en ce at th e lo w en d of th e G u i d e l i n e s ran ge ,

e f f e ct iv el y ren eg ed on th is co m m it m en t whe n it op po se d Mes te th ’s req ue st fo r a
do wnwar d va ria nc e. Mes te th as se rts th at th e arg um en ts m ad e by th e go ve rn m en t in

op po si ti on to hi s req ue st m irr or t h e jus ti fic at io ns us ed by th e di st ric t co ur t in

-5

-im

po si ng th e ab ov e-Gu id el in es se nt en ce. Fo r th is reas on , Mes te th be li ev es he di d no t

rece iv e th e b en efi t o f hi s b arg ai ne d- fo r pl ea ag reem en t.

Bec au se he di d no t rai se th e is su e of br each of th e pl ea ag reem en t to th e di st ric t

co ur t, ou r rev ie w is fo r pl ai n erro r. See Puc ke tt v. Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S. 12 9, 13 5
(2 00 9)

. “ To ob ta in rel ie f un de r a pl ai n- erro r st an da rd of rev ie w , t h e pa rty se ek in g
rel ie f m us t sh ow th at th ere was an erro r, t h e e r r o r i s cl ear or ob vi ou s un de r cu rren t

la w, th e erro r affe ct ed th e pa rty’ s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e

fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n o f ju d i c i a l pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v.

Po it ra, 6 48 F.3d 88 4, 8 87 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Twice du rin g th e s e n t en ci ng he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t co m pl ie d wit h it s
ob li ga ti on to reco m

m en d a se nt en ce at th e lo w en d of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. The pl ea

ag reem en t d id no t rest ric t th e go ve rn m en t from ch al le ng in g Mes te th ’s req ue st for a
be lo w-Gui de li ne s de pa rtu re. Eve n if Mes te th in te rp ret ed th e go ve rn m en t’s

pr es en ta ti on to th e co ur t to be “ le ss th an en th us ia st ic

, th is la ck of en th us ia sm do es no t

br each th e ag reem en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Has No Hor se s, 26 1 F.3 d 74 4, 75 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 01 ). Acco rd in gl y , th ere was no br each of th e pl ea agre em en t by th e go ve rn m en t.

III.

W e aff irm Mes te th ’s 60 -m on th sen te nc e.

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

-6

-