Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/874/466/382643/
Timestamp: 2017-11-18 19:09:37
Document Index: 195910304

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3551', '§ 991', '§ 2113', '§ 3742', '§ 3742', '§ 3742', '§ 3742', '§ 2113']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jeffery T. Miller, Defendant-appellant, 874 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1989) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1989 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jeffery T. Miller, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jeffery T. Miller, Defendant-appellant, 874 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1989)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 874 F.2d 466 (7th Cir. 1989)
Argued Feb. 22, 1989. Decided May 9, 1989
The only issue is the sentence imposed on defendant Jeffery T. Miller under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines ("Guidelines"), pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. (Supp. IV 1986), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 991-98 (Supp. IV 1986).1
On January 7, 1988 Miller was indicted in the Central District of Illinois and charged with the December 2, 1987 robbery of a federally insured savings and loan association in Springfield, Illinois in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (1982).2 Several weeks earlier on November 20, 1987, Miller had also robbed a federally insured savings and loan association in Pineallas Park in the Middle District of Florida in violation of the same statute.3 Thereafter he waived indictment, consented to proceeding by information, and agreed to the transfer of the Florida case to the Central District of Illinois for plea and sentencing. The defendant pleaded guilty to the one remaining Illinois count and to the Florida information. On October 4, 1988 Judge Mills sentenced Miller, so far as this appeal is concerned, to concurrent terms of 45 months,4 an enhanced sentence under the new sentencing act. The defendant challenges that enhancement as being in excess of what the sentencing act contemplates in these particular factual circumstances, and further contends that the sentence was not properly determined in accordance with the procedures mandated by the sentencing act. The sentencing hearing, therefore, needs to be examined.
It appears that Category III, where Miller ended up, was determined by Judge Mills' mathematical exercise of discretion by adding on a quarter of the sentence otherwise determined from the Guidelines, rather than through the comparative process mandated by the Guidelines. Possibly the result may turn out to be about the same, but the Guidelines compel a particular procedure and the exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion within those parameters. Although we will be quite deferential to a sentencing judge's decision to impose a sentence within the correctly ascertained guideline range, we are obligated to review sentences imposed outside the guideline range under a "reasonableness" standard. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (2) with 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (3). Where we find that a departure from the guideline range is unreasonable, we must vacate a sentence and remand the case for further proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f) (2). "Reasonableness" implies that a sentencing judge must provide articulable reasons, of a type contemplated by the Act and the Guidelines, and based on a sufficiently sound factual foundation, to justify a departure from the guidelines. For example, in United States v. Otero, 868 F.2d 1412 (5th Cir. 1989), the sentencing court made an upward departure on the defendant's offense level based on the purity of the cocaine involved in the defendant's drug offense. Although the Guidelines specifically allow for an upward departure based on drug purity, see Sec. 2D1.1 application note 9, the Fifth Circuit vacated the defendant's sentence, finding the departure unreasonable based on the record because the sentencing court failed to substantiate the evidence regarding drug purity. The appellate court also noted the sentencing court's failure to provide prior notice to the defendant of its intent to make an upward departure--the defendant found out at the sentencing hearing.
We observe finally that Judge Mills took particular note of the two state bench warrants that were outstanding against Miller when he committed the federal offense. If bench warrants are properly viewed as a prelude to a finding of contempt of the local court's notice to appear, it may be necessary to consider section 4A1.2(C) (1) of the Guidelines. That section excludes consideration of certain prior or similar offenses, for the purpose of computing criminal history, unless there was a sentence of at least 30 days or probation for at least one year. Contempt of court is the first example listed under the section. On the other hand, the Guidelines distinguish between information that can be considered in determining a defendant's guideline range, and information that may be considered when setting a sentence within a range or in deciding to depart from the range. See Guidelines Sec. 1B1.4 & commentary at 1.20.
Many questions can be expected to arise under the Guidelines, but hopefully they will diminish as all parties gain familiarity with the Guidelines' procedures. It is not for us to determine the appropriate sentence here even with the use of the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f) (2). That must be left to the trial judge's exercise of discretion within the Guidelines, with a record explanation of how and why the sentence was enhanced. See generally Miller, Guidelines are not Enough: The Need for Written Sentencing Opinions, 7.1 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 3 (1989). If it were not for the need to follow the Guidelines, we would find no fault with Miller's sentence.
An additional count charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) growing out of the same occurrence was later dismissed by the government when it was determined that Miller had not put lives in jeopardy by means of a dangerous weapon since he had used a toy gun, as he had in the Florida case next mentioned
Judge Mills also imposed an alternate sentence in the event the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 would be found unconstitutional. This alternate sentence was also challenged on appeal, but was rendered moot by Mistretta v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 647, 102 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1989)