Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/115/458/568229/
Timestamp: 2020-02-23 05:40:24
Document Index: 296206332

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3553', '§ 3742', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 3742', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lavoyce R. Billingsley, Defendant-appellant, 115 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1997 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lavoyce R. Billingsley, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lavoyce R. Billingsley, Defendant-appellant, 115 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 1997)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 115 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 1997) Argued Dec. 9, 1996. Decided May 30, 1997
The following day (October 16), Billingsley called the home of another of his friends, Gerald Simms (Simms), and Ward was present in the house. Billingsley spoke with Ward over the phone and asked if he was still interested in going to Iowa. Ward responded that he was, and Billingsley made arrangements to pick him up. Billingsley arrived at Simms' house, where, after visiting briefly with Simms, the defendant and Ward left to walk to the car. Upon arriving at the parked car, Ward observed what he believed to be the vehicle he and Billingsley had noticed on the evening of October 14. Ward remarked to Billingsley, " [y]ou got it," by which he meant Billingsley "got" the red Pontiac they had seen on October 14. Billingsley nodded response in the affirmative with a head gesture. Ward and Billingsley entered the vehicle, picked up their clothes, and thereafter left for Ames. Billingsley drove during the six-hour trip and told Ward that he planned to leave the Pontiac in Ames with a friend and borrow a different car for the return trip.
Billingsley was questioned as to how he obtained possession of the reported stolen red Pontiac. He changed his initial story that he had obtained it from a grandparent, and now stated that he had traded a car he owned earlier in the day in Chicago with a person named "Carlos." He was unable to identify Carlos nor was he able to provide either a last name or address for Carlos. When questioned about his possession of a gun and bullets at the time of his arrest, Billingsley denied either owning or possessing a gun or bullets. When he was confronted with the weapon found in the back of Officer Holmes' squad car, the defendant laughed at the officers and said " [p]rove it."
Billingsley challenges the two-level adjustment he received under the "vulnerable victim" provision of § 3A1.1 of the guidelines. The guideline provides, in relevant part, that the defendant's offense level is to be increased two levels where "the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or that a victim was otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct." U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. We recently reviewed the standards by which we determine when this enhancement is proper in United States v. Jackson, 95 F.3d 500 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 404, 136 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1996):
We review a district court's factual finding that a defendant preyed on vulnerable victims only for clear error. United States v. Sutherland, 955 F.2d 25, 26 (7th Cir. 1992). We have previously noted that " 'vulnerability' is the sort of fact which the trial court is peculiarly well-positioned to gauge...." United States v. White, 903 F.2d 457, 463 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 868 F.2d 807, 809 (5th Cir. 1989)). In order to apply the § 3A1.1(b) enhancement, the district court must find both 1) that a victim of the defendant's crime was unusually vulnerable in some way, and 2) that the defendant targeted that victim because of this vulnerability. Id.; United States v. Singh, 54 F.3d 1182, 1191 (4th Cir. 1995). A person can be "unusually vulnerable" due to a characteristic like age or physical or mental handicap, or due to some other characteristic that makes that person "particularly susceptible" to the defendant's crime. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b).
Billingsley makes two arguments with respect to this enhancement. Initially he claims that Mr. Patten, despite his advanced age, should not be considered as a "vulnerable victim" to Billingsley's attack, because he was not "unusually vulnerable." The defendant acknowledges our decision in United States v. White, 903 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1990), in which we stated that " [i]t is obvious that people of advanced years in general are less capable of resisting attack than are younger people." 903 F.2d at 463. Billingsley asserts, however, that because Mr. Patten testified that he "ran" to his neighbor's house, he must be the "counterpoint" to our statement in White. The defendant fails, however, to note our observation in Whitethat "vulnerability is the sort of fact which the trial court is peculiarly well-positioned to gauge, particularly in instances when the trial court has had an opportunity to observe the victim in court." Id. (quoting United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 868 F.2d 807, 809 (5th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added)). As we stated in United States v. Tolson, 988 F.2d 1494 (7th Cir. 1993):
988 F.2d at 1497 (quoting Churchill v. Waters, 977 F.2d 1114, 1124 (7th Cir. 1992) (emphasis in original)).
Billingsley also contests the finding that he "knew or should have known" that Mr. Patten was unusually vulnerable. He focuses on Ward's testimony that, when he, Billingsley and Brown were walking by Patten's house on October 14, they did not see who the driver of the Bonneville was when it pulled in front of them into the driveway they were about to cross. The defendant argues that there was no evidence to demonstrate that he knew Mr. Patten was elderly and that he "targeted" Patten on account of his elderly status. In our opinion, this argument fails. We have examined the record and conclude that the evidence supports the conclusion that Billingsley knew or should have known that the elderly man was unusually vulnerable to the attack and decided to take the car from him after having had the opportunity to observe that Mr. Patten was an elderly man. The record demonstrates that, on the night they took the car, Billingsley (along with Brown) waited for Patten as he pulled the Pontiac into his garage and rushed him after he had walked from his garage and approached his back door. Mr. Patten testified that, on October 15, he was accosted as he was stepping up onto the stoop of his back door, which was approximately twenty-five feet away from his detached garage. He also testified that the garage lights were on. Thus, Billingsley had the opportunity to observe Mr. Patten walking from his garage to the back door of his house before engaging him in a direct physical attack, even if we were to believe that he did not see him on October 14. Billingsley has not argued that Mr. Patten appeared to be unusually youthful or fit looking for a man of his age, and we disagree with the defendant's self-serving unsupported assertion that it is "nonsensical to believe that the knowledge of the victim's age obtained in [the time Patten walked from his garage to his back door] meets the Guideline requirement that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was unusually vulnerable." Br. of Appellant at 14. In that period, Billingsley had ample time to observe the elderly man as he walked toward his back door and either back off or proceed with the assault based on his observation of the victim. See United States v. Pearce, 967 F.2d 434, 435 (10th Cir. 1992) (vulnerable victim enhancement applies where the defendant targets victim "because he knows that the victim's characteristics make the victim unusually vulnerable to that criminal conduct").4 Further, Billingsley had the opportunity to observe Patten while forcing him to walk to the garage and while questioning him about the title, and could have withdrawn from the attack at any point. The trial judge acknowledged the importance of the direct physical attack in his decision when he described how Billingsley "by brandishing a firearm which he possessed, he took, through intimidation, the 1993 Bonneville from the 82-year-old victim." Jan. 26 Tr. at 11. Upon review of the record, we disagree with the defendant's argument and find no error in the enhancement of Billingsley's sentence under the "vulnerable victim" guideline.
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4). See also United States v. Bush, 79 F.3d 64, 67 (7th Cir. 1996). "We review the district court's finding that an enhancement is warranted by a defendant's aggravated role in the offense for clear error." United States v. Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d 1295, 1309 (7th Cir. 1995).
When determining whether an "organizer or leader" enhancement under § 3B1.1 is warranted, the introductory commentary to Part B instructs us that " [t]he determination of a defendant's role in the offense is to be made on the basis of all conduct within the scope of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) ... and not solely on the basis of elements and acts cited in the count of conviction." U.S.S.G., Ch.3, Pt.B, intro. comment. Relevant conduct, according to § 1B1.3(a), includes conduct "that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense" (emphasis added). The trial court's findings are supported by evidence that, on October 14, it was Billingsley's idea to attempt to lure Mr. Patten out of his home so Billingsley could steal the car for his trip to Iowa, and that he engaged both Ward and Brown on the 14th to assist him. When Ward backed out and refused to comply with Billingsley's request that he knock on the door, the plan was put off for a night. The next night, after having excluded Ward for his refusal to assist in the carjacking on the 14th, the defendant and Brown returned to Patten's home. On that occasion, assisted by Brown, the defendant forcibly removed the car and the title from Mr. Patten. Although Brown assisted Billingsley in taking the vehicle, he did not accompany Billingsley on the trip to Iowa.5 Finally, during the trip to Iowa, the defendant was the sole driver of the car, which he had been the one to express interest in, the entire way. In sum, the record could not be any more clear that the whole episode was Billingsley's idea--he was the organizer of the offense, recruited accomplices to assist him in initially attempting and later carrying out the offense, was the main participant in the commission of the offense, and received the largest share of the benefit (in terms of his ability to visit his girlfriend) of the offense.
79 F.3d at 67 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Granado, 72 F.3d 1287, 1290 (7th Cir. 1995).6 We conclude that there was no clear error in the enhancement under § 3B1.1.
Prior to the second sentencing hearing, the district judge notified the parties that he was considering an upward departure. The court concluded that Billingsley had transported the gun and ammunition found in the squad car across state lines, and that an upward departure was therefore appropriate under § 5K2.6, which provides grounds for an upward departure if "a weapon or dangerous instrumentality was used or possessed in the commission of the offense." To determine the proper extent of departure, the judge looked to § 2B3.1, the guideline applicable to robbery. Section (b) (2) of the guideline directs a five-level enhancement "if a firearm was brandished, displayed, or possessed" during the offense. The judge found that this was an appropriate amount of enhancement, since Billingsley "had previously used that firearm in the carjacking" of Mr. Patten's Pontiac, and increased the defendant's offense level from a fifteen to a twenty. Billingsley claims on appeal that the judge erred in looking to § 2B3.1 for guidance in determining the appropriate amount of enhancement to apply.
The sentencing court's decision to depart from the guidelines is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Koon v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2047-48, 135 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1996); United States v. Purchess, 107 F.3d 1261, 1271 (7th Cir. 1997); see United States v. Wyatt, 102 F.3d 241, 246 n. 7 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 1325, 137 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1997). "A sentencing court may depart from the Guidelines if it 'finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines.' " United States v. Hogan, 54 F.3d 336, 341 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)). "When a court finds an atypical case, one to which a particular guideline linguistically applies but where conduct significantly differs from the norm, the court may consider whether a departure is warranted." U.S.S.G. Ch.1, Pt.A, intro. comment. 4(b).
As the Supreme Court stated in Koon, " [a] district court's decision to depart from the Guidelines ... will in most cases be due substantial deference, for it embodies the traditional exercise of discretion by a sentencing court." --- U.S. at ----, 116 S. Ct. at 2046. Where, as here, we review the extent of the departure, as opposed to the validity of the decision to depart in the first place (which Billingsley does not challenge), we examine only whether the extent of the departure was "reasonable." United States v. Horton, 98 F.3d 313, 316 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Ferra, 900 F.2d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 1990) and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (3), (f) (2)).
When determining how far to depart in a given case, district courts are instructed to "link" the extent of a departure to "the structure of the guidelines." Horton, 98 F.3d at 317; see also Hogan, 54 F.3d at 342; United States v. Sarna, 28 F.3d 657, 661 (7th Cir. 1994). In other words, as explained in Horton:
In the present case, the district court expressly performed the "linkage" our cases have contemplated. The judge determined that Billingsley "brandish [ed] a firearm which he possessed, [and] took, through intimidation, this 1993 Bonneville from the 82-year-old victim." The judge found that, after "displaying the prize of his crime to his friend [Ward]," Billingsley transported the gun and ammunition across state lines to Iowa, and attempted to hide the gun and the ammunition in the squad car in Iowa. He determined that the Commission had not taken possession of a gun into account in formulating the offense level under § 2B1.1 (a finding Billingsley has not challenged), and expressly looked to another guideline provision to determine the appropriate extent of departure. He then determined that the five-level enhancement called for under the Robbery guideline § 2B3.1(b) (2) (C) provided the appropriate degree of departure, and adjusted the defendant's sentence accordingly.
Billingsley has suggested that the court should have looked to other guidelines which provide a lower enhancement for possession of a weapon. For example, he claims that either § 2A2.2(b) (2), which provides for a three-level enhancement when a firearm is "brandished or its use was threatened" during Aggravated Assault, or § 2E2.1(b) (1) (C), providing a three-level enhancement when a firearm is "brandished, displayed, or possessed" during the offense of Extortionate Extension of Credit, should have been used. Billingsley's argument fails to take into account that "the district court's findings on the degree of departure are given deference." United States v. Sarna, 28 F.3d 657, 661 (7th Cir. 1994). Here, the sentencing judge determined that, based on Billingsley's use of the gun in stealing the car by threat of force from Mr. Patten, the Robbery guideline provided the closest link in the guidelines to Billingsley's offense.7 In determining which guideline provided the best link, the judge was not, as Billingsley suggests, required to put blinders on to the fact that Billingsley had previously used the gun to effectuate the taking of the car which he then transported across state lines. In this regard, defendant's reliance on United States v. Baldwin, 5 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 1993) is misplaced. Baldwin addressed a departure under § 5K2.6 where the defendant did not use or possess the dangerous weapon during the offense of conviction. 5 F.3d at 242. We held that "5K2.6 ... contemplates departures only when the dangerous weapon was possessed during the offense of conviction." Id. In the instant case, as the defendant has conceded, the trial judge was careful to base the departure on Billingsley's possession of the handgun when he transported the car across state lines. Once that finding has been made by the judge, we do not think (and Billingsley has not cited any cases suggesting) that the judge was prohibited from considering, for purposes of determining which guideline to link the departure to, Billingsley's use of the gun in taking the Pontiac. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4, comment. (backg'd) (" [I]nformation that does not enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range may be considered in determining whether and to what extent to depart from the guidelines." (emphasis added)); Koon, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S. Ct. at 2046 (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) requires courts of appeals to "give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts"); United States v. Gaddy, 909 F.2d 196, 200 (7th Cir. 1990) (possession of gun during commission of offense part of " 'background, character and conduct of the defendant' relevant under § 1B1.4 to a decision to depart" (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4)). We hold that it was proper for the sentencing judge to depart upward based on Billingsley's possession of the handgun and ammunition, and we further conclude that the degree of departure was reasonable.IV. Conclusion
The judge also imposed two enhancements not challenged by Billingsley on appeal. Pursuant to § 2B1.1(b) (1), which provides for enhancements in the defendant's offense level based on the value of the property stolen, the judge enhanced Billingsley's offense level by five. He also enhanced Billingsley's criminal offense level two points based upon the judge's finding that the offense involved "more than minimal planning." See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b) (5) (A) (1994); § 2B1.1(b) (4) (A) (1995)
The commentary to § 3A1.1 was amended in the 1995 version of the guidelines, and the language stating that the adjustment applies "where an unusually vulnerable victim is made a target of criminal activity by the defendant" was removed. It was replaced by language stating that the enhancement applies where the defendant "knew or should have known" that the victim was unusually vulnerable. See 1995 U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, comment. (n.2); United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1134, 1136-40 (3d Cir. 1997). The government has noted this amendment in its brief, but does not ask us to reconsider the "target" requirement
Since Brown participated in the carjacking under Billingsley's direction, it was clearly proper for the district judge to conclude that Brown's assistance provided further evidence of Billingsley's leadership status. See United States v. Peters, 59 F.3d 732, 734 (8th Cir. 1995) (3B1.1 enhancement proper where defendant "came up with the plan, recruited [two accomplices] to participate, and continued to provide substantial direction during the life of the plan")
Billingsley relies on United States v. Fones, 51 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 1995), for the proposition that the district court must find that a defendant exercised control over another participant to warrant a § 3B1.1 enhancement. As we noted in that case, "efforts of recruitment would likewise be sufficient to establish control over a participant under [sec. 3B1.1]." 51 F.3d at 670 n. 5. "Participant" is defined in the guidelines as "a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted." § 3B1.1, comment (n.1). Billingsley has not argued that Ward and Brown were not participants. Given his recruitment of both to engage in the taking of the car from Mr. Patten, along with the fact that stealing the Pontiac was his idea, he directed Ward and Brown's actions on October 14th, excluded Ward from the theft operation the next night, and was in control of and drove the car the entire way to Iowa, we are of the opinion that the evidence supports the conclusion that Billingsley exercised control over Brown and Ward's actions