Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/294/837/545695/
Timestamp: 2019-09-20 04:02:42
Document Index: 683957765

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3553', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Christopher Travis, Defendant-appellant, 294 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2002) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 2002 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Christopher Travis, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Christopher Travis, Defendant-appellant, 294 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2002)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 294 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2002)
On appeal Mr. Travis argues only that the district court improperly denied an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Section 3E1.1(a) of the sentencing guidelines authorizes a two-level downward adjustment if the defendant "clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense." U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) (2000). An additional one-level adjustment is permitted if the defendant "has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct," and the defendant's offense level, prior to the application of § 3E1.1(a), was greater than level 16. Id. § 3E1.1(b). The defendant has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment is warranted. United States v. Ewing, 129 F.3d 430, 435 (7th Cir. 1997). Whether a defendant has accepted responsibility is a factual question reviewed for clear error, United States v. Mayberry, 272 F.3d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 2001); we will affirm absent a "definite and firm" conviction that a mistake occurred, Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948).
A defendant who obstructs justice is presumed not to have accepted responsibility. See Mayberry, 272 F.3d at 949; United States v. Buckley, 192 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Allee, 282 F.3d 997, 1002 (8th Cir. 2002); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 4. The government has stressed this presumption both in its brief and at oral argument. However, obstruction-of-justice and acceptance-of-responsibility adjustments are not always mutually exclusive. See United States v. Champion, 234 F.3d 106, 110-11 (2d Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Harper, 246 F.3d 520, 526-28 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Lallemand, 989 F.2d 936, 938 (7th Cir. 1993). Here the district court did not cite Mr. Travis' obstructive conduct as the basis for denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Instead, the district court denied the adjustment because Mr. Travis down-played the illegality of his operation of Maple Investments during a presentence interview held after he pleaded guilty in connection with the Maple Investments scam. Mr. Travis told probation officials, for example, that he did not intend to defraud the investors in Maple Investments and that the government had "really overblown" his conduct. R. 40, PSR at 5. He also discounted the significance of his actions by suggesting that his problems began only after he received phony checks from his investors. Mr. Travis went on to say that, had he "checked out" the investors, he would not have started writing bad checks. Id. Defendants like Mr. Travis, who minimize illegal conduct or blame others for wrongdoing, have failed to accept responsibility. See United States v. Sierra, 188 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Field, 110 F.3d 592, 594 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1299 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, the record supports the district court's finding that Mr. Travis failed to accept responsibility, even after he pleaded guilty in this case, and it is unnecessary to consider whether Mr. Travis' obstruction of justice also provided the district court with grounds to deny an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
Mr. Travis responds that because he entered his pleas before trial and acceded to the government's estimate of the loss caused by his conduct, he still should have received an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment. But simply sparing the government the expense of a trial does not automatically entitle a defendant to the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 3; see also United States v. Wallace, 280 F.3d 781, 785-86 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Branch, 195 F.3d 928, 937 (7th Cir. 1999). The adjustment's purpose is not only to induce guilty pleas; it also takes into account the reduced rate of recidivism among defendants who admit the wrongfulness of their actions. See United States v. Lopinski, 240 F.3d 574, 575 (7th Cir. 2001). To accept responsibility a defendant must therefore express more than regret about the consequences of illegal conduct; the defendant must also acknowledge that the conduct violated the law. See id. at 576. Yet here Mr. Travis merely apologized at his sentencing hearing to his family and victims "for all the havoc I've caused" and remarked to probation officials that he had made "a wrong turn." R. 42, Sent.Tr. at 24; R. 40, PSR at 5. Because Mr. Travis' other comments to probation officials demonstrated that he did not fully appreciate the illegality of his actions, the district court did not commit clear error in denying Mr. Travis' requested adjustment.
Mr. Travis advances two additional arguments, but neither requires extended discussion. He first submits that the district court gave inadequate reasons for denying the adjustment. It is true that the district court needed to give reasons for the sentence it imposed, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), but we shall uphold a sentence imposed with an incomplete statement, provided that a "more than adequate" foundation in the record supports the district court's findings, see United States v. Corral-Ibarra, 25 F.3d 430, 442 (7th Cir. 1994). In Mr. Travis' case the record contains not only an adequate factual foundation for denying the adjustment, but it also includes comments from the court explaining why the adjustment was denied. As Judge Castillo explained, Mr. Travis was not entitled to an adjustment because he told probation officials that he never intended to defraud the investors and that he began "floating checks" only because some of the investors provided him with fraudulent checks. R. 40, PSR at 6. Given this explanation, which is sufficient, Mr. Travis has no basis to challenge the district court's articulation of its reasons. Second, Mr. Travis maintains that in addition to a two-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), he should also have received another one-level decrease under § 3E1.1(b) (2) since he timely notified authorities of his intention to plead guilty. But § 3E1.1(b) by its own terms applies only to defendants who qualify for a decrease under § 3E1.1(a), and here the record supports the district court's finding that Mr. Travis was not entitled to a two-level decrease in the first place.