## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 3252 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HA RLES Z OHFELD , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C R 403

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Ju dge . A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 18, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 11, 2010

B efor e E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, a nd W ILLIAM S an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judge. Cha r l es Zo hfel d, a fte r pl ea di ng gui l ty to sta l ki ng the sur geo n w ho sa ve d hi s l i fe, was s e n t e n c e d wi th i n th e Se n t e n c i n gG u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . He com pla i ns thatthe dist ric t c ourtr el i ed on inaccurat e i nf o r m at i o n i n se nt en cing hi m an d i m pr o per ly co nsi dered t h e m entalheal th tr eat m ent he m ay have re cei ved i n pri son w h en a rr i vi ng athi s s entence . A fter2 N o. 08
- 3252 review ing the record , w e f in d that the d istri ct cou rt di d no t relyo n a ny i na cc ur at e i nf o r m at i o n in s en ten cing Z ohfeld
. W e also find that the d istri ct cou rt d id not abu se its d iscretion in con side r in g Zoh fel d ’s m entalheal th am ong the v ar i etyo ff acto rs i t di scu ssed at sente nci ng. There f or e, we affi rm hi s s entence .

I . B AC KGR OUND Ch ar l es Zohfe l d w as rushed to the em er gencyr oo m i n M ay 200 5 aft ersuffer i ng an apparent hear t a tta ck. Em er g en cy r o o m phy si ci an s st ab i l i ze d Zo hfel d and tr ansfer re d him to the surg er y uni t. A car diacsur geo n perf or m ed open hea rtsur gery an d i m pla nted a pace

m ake r, sa vi ng Zohfel d’s l i fe. Bu t a fterhi s s uccess ful re cove ry, Zohfel d b egan to ha rass an d threat en the su r g e o n an d his staff

— m ak i ng re p ea te d th re at en in g p h on e c a l l s, ap p ea rin g a t t h e c lin ic w ithou t ap p ointm en ts, a n d m onitoring th e surge on’s f am i l y ’ s whe r e ab o ut s . On o ne ph o ne c a l l, he s a i d, “I ha ve b ee n abl e to b uy a B er et ta 9
- m i l l i m et erha ndg un a nd Iwi l l b r i ngi tb y f o r [ the s ur g e o n] t o s e e. ” On anothe r cal l, he s tat ed that he had bee n “prac tic i ng with m y 9 -m illi m ete r hand gun. . . . You r eal l y s houl d consi der ta k i ngo ut the s tu ffy o u puti nt o me. Iwas the wro ng per so n t o s ti cka kni fe i nto. G ot th at ?” Ev en tu al l y, the su r geon fel t th e ne ed to r el o ca te hi s pr ac ti ce a nd fam il y f r o m I ll inois to California. M uc h to th e surge on’s di s may, a ft e r mov i ng t o Ca l i f o r ni a , Zo hfe l d a g a i n ap pe a r e d a th i s me di c a l o ffi c e , a nd the thr e a t s c o nt i nu e d.N o. 08
- 3252 3 Zohfe l d w as ar re ste d and c h ar ged with tw o counts of mak i n gth r e a t e n i n gp h o n e c a l l s i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U
. S
. C. § 8 75( c)
. H e pl ea d ed guil ty, and the gov er nm ent fi l ed a m em or andu m r equesting a sente nce ab ove the sugg e s t e d G ui de l i ne s r a ng e b a s e d o n the s e v e r e i m pact Zohfe l d’s cri m es had, as w el l as Zohfel d’s ex p re sse d desire t o c o nt i nue t o ha r as s th e su r g eo n. The g o ve r nm en t al so a sk ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t no t to a ppl y the tw o- l eve l r educ tion f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty despit e the f act that Zohfe l d quickly pl eaded gui l ty afterhi s a rr est . Pri orto se nt en c in g Zohfel d, the di str i ct c ourtgr anted his m otion to be exa m ined by a ps ych iatri st. D r. Be rna rd Rub i n, the e xa m i ni ng phy si ci an, f o und h i m c o m pet en t to s ta nd t r i al
. He a l so f o und tha t Zo hfel d was de l usi o na l a nd wou l d b en efi t f r o m e xt en si ve the r apya nd psychi atr i c m edi cati on. Zohfel d vol untari l y e ntered g ro u p th er ap y d u rin g h is p re -se n te n c in g d et en tio n . H is ther api st, Dr. Ri chard B onga rd, advi sed the cour t that c o nt i nu i ngthe r a pywo ul d b e b e ne fi c i a l t o Z o hfe l d. A t th e sen ten cing hearing, over th e go v ernm en t’s ob j ec tio n, th e cou rt fou n d th at Z oh feld ac c ep te d res p on sibi l i ty for hi s ac ti o ns a nd a war ded hi m the c o r r es po ndi ng tw o- l eve l r educti on. I t then cal cul ate d the Guidel i nes ra nge, wh i ch the parti es agr eed was 18 to 24 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent. The governm ent r equeste d a se ntence of 24 to 30 m ont hs ’ i m p risonm en t, a r gu ing tha t Zoh fel d ’s conduct had a seve re i m pact on the surg eon an d ot hers
. Z oh feld ’s c ou n se l as ke d t h e c ou rtto se n te n c e Z oh feld to p ro b at ion so h e c ou ld rec eiv e o u tp at ien t p sy c h iat ric tr eat m ent.4 N o. 08
- 3252 Befo re r eachi ng i ts deci si on, the dist ri ct c ourtdi scusse d a va ri etyo ff acto rs . Pro m i nent i n the cour t’ s m i nd was th e s ev er e im p ac t Z oh feld ’s c r im e h ad on h is v ict im an d h is v ict im ’s fa m ily. T h e c ou rt a lso st at ed th at it fel t th atZo hfel d need ed psy ch o l o g i ca l t r ea tmenta nd m edi ca ti o n in a c us to di ale nv i r o nm en t be ca us e he was no t ac ti ve l y pa r ti ci pat i ngi n the g r o up the r apy . The cour t ac kn owledge d that i t co uld notm andate that Zohfe l d rec ei ve tr eat m ent, but Zohfe l d sai d he needed i t, so the d ist ric t co urt i nstr ucted the Bu re au ofPri sons to pla ce hi m ata f aci l i ty that w oul d gi ve hi m the best m entalheal th trea tm ent pos sibl e. I t then se ntenced hi m to 24 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent follo w ed by 3 y ear s o f supervi sed r el eas e. Zohfel d app eal s hi s s entence .
II. A N A L Y S IS W e i nter pret Zohfe l d’s ar gum ent a s hav i ng two par ts: ( 1) the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byr elyi ng sol ely o n the f act tha ti tb e l i e v e d tha tZ o hfe l d n e e de d c us t o di al m entalheal th car e in sent en c in g him to pri son ra ther than pr o b a t i o n; a nd ( 2 ) the di s t r i c tc o ur tr e l i e d o n i na ccurat e i nfo rm ati on ( i ts bel i ef that he w oul d r ecei ve a d equat e m en tal heal th car e in pri son) wh en i t i m posed hi s s entence . N ei thero fthes e a rgum ents has m er i t. The pr o vi si o n o fment alhe al tht r ea tmentwas buto ne ofa num bero ff acto rs thatthe cour t pr oper l y con si dered be f o r e impos i nga s en te nc e. Co nt r ar y t o Zo hfel d’ s ar g um ent, i t was notthe “so l e” re aso n h e w as sente nced to priso n ra therthan proba ti on; i n f act, i t was notev en th e pr i m ar y r ea so n. Zo hfel d ha d c o m m i tte d a s er i o usN o. 08
- 3252 5 offe n se th at sign ifica n tly im p ac te d m u ltip le p eo p le

— th e s u rgeon, his f am il y and staff

— an d the di st r i ctcou rt c o nc l ud e d tha ta te r m o fi nc a r c e r a t i o n wa s wa r r a nt e d. I n r ea ch i ngthi s co nc l us i o n, the cou rt l i st en ed to the ar gum en ts o fbo th par ti es, hear d test i m ony f ro m Zo hfel d a nd Zo hfel d’ s daught er, a nd e xa m i ne d the f acto rs l i ste d i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)
. The co urt re pea te dl y e m pha si ze d the s er i o us ne ss o fZo hfel d’ s co nd u c t, an d ev en n o t e d th at in ligh t o f th e o ffen se it ha d g i ve n tho ug htt o i m po singa s en te nc e a bove the G uid eli ne range. I ts p rim ary reason f or rej ectin g Zoh fel d ’s re quest t o sentence hi m to pro bati on

— as i de f r o m the f act th at p robati on was bel ow the bo tto m o fthe Gu i del i ne s r an g e o f1 8 m o nths

— w as the s er i ou sn ess o f Zohfe l d’s acti ons. I n add i ti on to consi deri ng the ser i ousness and i m pact ofZo hfel d’ s cr i m e, the c o ur t di d a ddr es s Zo hfel d ’s m en ta l he al thi ss ue s. I t co r r ec tly recogni ze d tha t wi th o ut m en ta l he a l th tre at m en t, Z oh feld m igh t b e m or e like ly to continue hi s cr i m i nal behav i or . I t a cknowle dged th ata l th o ug h Zo hfel d ha d bee n a tt en di ngg r o up ther apy se ssi ons, co unsel or s r epor ted thathe ha d not ac ti vel y b ee n pa r ti ci pat i ngi n the m . The r efo r e, the c ou rtst at ed th at it w as n otco n f i d e n t th at Z oh feld w oul d rec ei ve the t re atm ent he needed i n a no n-c ustodi al en vir o n m e n t. T h e c ou rtrec og n ize d , ho w ev er , th at w h ile i tc o u l d n o tf o r c e t r e a t me n to n Z o h fe l d , i tc o u l d r e c o mm end that th e Burea u ofPri sons pla ce hi m ata f aci l i ty w here he c oul d avai lhi m sel fo fsuch t re atm ent. W e r ev i ew a di st r i ct cou r t’ s se nt en ce s f o r r ea so nab l en es s buti ts se nt encingpr o ce dur es unde r a no n-6 N o. 08
- 3252 d efe re n tia l st an d ar d
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ndoz a , 51 0 F
. 3d 74 9 , 7 54 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ). A w ith in -G u id elin es se n te n c e is presum ed re aso nabl e. U nite d State s v. O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d 691, 69 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng R ita v. U nit ed S ta tes , 55 1 U. S
. 3 3 8 , 3 4 7( 2 0 0 7 ) )
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r th a s w i d e l a t i t ud e to consi der m any f act ors, i ncl ud i ng the need f orm ental he a l th t r e a t men t, whe n i mpo s i ng a s e nt e nce. Ind e e d, § 3 553( a) speci fi cal l y di re cts the c ourtto co nsi der a defendant’s need fo r m ed i calcar e. See 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553( a) ( 2) ( D) ( cour t s hal l co nsi der ne ed for se ntence im p osed to “pro vi de the defe nd ant w i th needed [
. . .] m edi ca l c ar e, o r o th erc o r r ec ti o na l t r ea tmentin the m os t e ffec tiv e m an n er ”); se e also U nite d States v. Farris , 44 8 F.3 d 96 5, 96 9 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ) ( “B y re c om m en d in g h is p articipation i n . . . m en tal health cou ns eli ng, the cou rt ap p re c iat ed th e n ee d f or a se n te n c e t h at p ro vid ed Fa rris wi tha ppr o pr i at e co r r ec ti o na l trea tment . ”)
. Her e, the dist ri ct c ourtadequately too k into acco unt the § 3 553( a) f ac to r s i n de te r m i ni nga s en te nc e f o r Zo hfel d. Appl y i ng thos e f acto rs , i t co ncl ud ed that a within -G uidel i nes sente nce r efl ecte d the s er i ousness o fthe offense, pr o m o te d r es pec t f o r the l aw, a nd pr o vi ded j us t puni sh

m en t. T ha t an ad d iti ona l fac t o r cons idered w as Z ohfeld ’s need f orm entalheal th t reatm ent was notan abuse o fdi sc r et i o n. Zohfe l d’s poi nt thata dist ri ct c ourtm ay not re l y o n in ac c u ra te info rm at ion w h en im p os in g a se n t e n c e is leg ally co rre c t, bu t o f n o re lev an c e h er e. See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 454 F.3d 64 2, 65 2 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); U nited St at e s ex re l
. We l ch v. La ne, 7 3 8 F .2 d 8 63, 868 ( 7th Cir. 1984 )
. Zohfel d d oes notdi spute thathe ha s m entalN o. 08
- 3252 7 he al thi ss ue s o r tha t he nee ds tr ea tment . Ins te ad, he argu es th at th e “inacc ura te” inform ation w as th e cou rt’s b elie f th at h e w ou ld rec eiv e a d eq u at e t r e a tm en t in pri son. The Bureau o fPri son’ s m an ual st ate s that pr i so ne r s a r e e nt i t l e d t o fr e e me nt a l h e a l th c o un sel i ng, a nd , i f appropri ate l y di agno sed bya psychi atr i st, pre scr i pti on d ru g s t o t re at th eir m en ta l he alt h p ro b lem s. See BOP: I nm ate M entalH eal th Tre atm ent a nd Counsel i ng, http: //w w w . bop. gov/inm ate _pro gr am s/m ental
.j sp ( l astvi si t ed Jan u ar y 1 2, 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hankt on , 43 2 F
. 3d 779, 7 89 (7th Cir
. 20 05) ( “[ T]he l aw i s v er y c l earthat a s entencing j ud ge ‘ m ay ap p ro pri ate l y c onduct an i nquir y b road in s cope, l ar gel y unl i m i ted ei theras to the k i nd o fi nfo rm ati on he m ay c onsider, o r the s ourc e fro m w h ich it m ay co m e.’ . .
. A co ro lla r y t o th is ge n er alpri nci ple i s the r ule thata sente nci ng j ud ge ‘ m ay consi d er r el evanti nfo rm ati on without r ega rd to the rules of evi dence .
. . pro vi ded thatthe i nfo rm ati on has [ a] suffi ci ent ind i ci a o fr el i abili ty to supp or t i ts probabl e a ccurac y. ’ ” ( ci ta tions om i tte d))
. The di str i ct co ur t i s en ti tl ed to r ely o n th i s i nf o r m at i o n whe n c o nc lu d in g t h at th e B u re au of P ris on s w ou ld giv e Z oh feld ad eq u at e m en ta l he alt h tre at m en t. It d id n otrely on inac cu rate info r m ation w he n im p osing Z ohfeld ’s sente nce.
I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe forego ing reas ons, Zohfe l d’s sentence i s A FFIRMED .
2- 11- 10