Opinion ID: 2708480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pollock’s Sentence

Text: Pollock’s final contention on appeal is that his sentence should be vacated because it is procedurally and substantively flawed. Because Pollock challenges both his sentence’s procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness, we employ two standards of review. “First, we conduct a de novo review for any procedural error. If we determine that the district court committed no procedural error, we review the 3 In fact, Pollock did disagree with this inference at the sentencing hearing. He argued that “[t]here is no continuing abduction and there is no attempt to conceal anything … these are words spoken by somebody who is depressed as opposed to attempting to conceal any past crime.” Sentencing Tr. at 90. 12 No. 13-2764 sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” United States v. Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). We note that Pollock received a below-Guidelines sentence which “is presumed reasonable against a defendant’s challenge that it is too high.” United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837 (7th Cir. 2009). First, Pollock argues that the district court did not adequately address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. With regard to these factors, the district court noted the following: Okay. The Court having considered the information before it. The Presentence Report is prepared by probation which includes sentencing guideline calculations, the defendant’s commentary on sentencing factors, and the attachments, letters from individuals, the government’s commentary, the arguments of counsel, the statement of Mr. Pollock, the factors as set forth in 3553, which include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training, medical care or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. I believe that after factoring all of these matters that this sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purpose of the Act. … No. 13-2764 13 Now, as I said earlier, Mr. Pollock, you are—believe that you are being singled out for everything because of Kim Bowyer. The fact that you are being sentenced for the guns, the ammunition, and for the tampering with the witness has little to do with Kim Bowyer and everything to do with you. Sentencing Tr. at 124-25; 128. The Court then referenced paragraph 63 of the Presentence Investigation Report, which concluded that Pollock suffered from narcissistic personality disorder and noted that he “sees his conflicts with other people as being created by them and therefore, he sees no need to change.” The district court noted that these traits were “abundantly clear by spending any amount of time with you as we have.” Id. at 129. Pollock argues that “[t]he district court’s cursory attention to the § 3553(a) factors provides this Court with no information as to why Pollock received a 20-year sentence and therefore hinders meaningful appellate review.” Appellant Br. at 33. We disagree. A “district court is not required to recite and address each of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, or all of a defendant’s arguments for a lighter sentence.” United States v. Lyons, 733 F.3d 777, 785 (7th Cir. 2013). “[T]he sentencing judge can discuss the application of the statutory fac- tors to the defendant not in checklist fashion but instead in the form of an adequate statement of the judge’s reasons, consistent with section 3553(a), for thinking the sentence that he has selected is indeed appropriate for the particular defendant.” United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005). It is clear from reviewing the district court’s statements—including those noted below—that it found the serious nature of Pollock’s crimes to be a key factor. He pos14 No. 13-2764 sessed guns and ammunition, which he was prohibited from having, threatened Bowyer with one of those guns, and then attempted to prevent a key witness from testifying against him. The district court also factored in Pollock’s own history and characteristics and the need to deter him from committing future crimes, especially in light of the finding that he takes no responsibility for his actions, but rather, blames others. Pollock’s cursory argument on appeal regarding the § 3553(a) factors does not direct us to anything specific that the district court failed to consider or take into account, and, in all we are satisfied with the district court’s reasoning. 4 Next, Pollock argues that the district court committed several errors in imposing a consecutive ten-year sentence for attempted witness tampering. The district court said the following at sentencing: Now 5K2.9 sets forth the criminal purpose: committed the offense in order to facilitate or conceal the commission of another offense. I believe that’s the case here. When the defendant was under federal indictment for Count III – was under federal indictment for Counts I and II when Count III was committed and the enhancement for the level for obstruction of justice, the two point enhancement, I don’t think adequately accounts for the nature and circumstances of the offense, so therefore a consecutive sentence, I believe, is necessary as to Count III. 4 While Pollock does not argue that the district court failed to consider his arguments in mitigation, we note that the district court heard and received evidence regarding Pollock’s church attendance and Bible course completion. No. 13-2764 15 Sentencing Tr. at 125-26. Pollock argues that the ten-year sentence is procedurally flawed because the district court did not adequately explain why such a sentence was necessary. He also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because his “conduct was nothing more than garden-variety attempted witness tampering[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 34. We disagree. While Pollock may believe the letters he sent to Clayes were mere “garden-variety” attempts to prevent him from testifying, clearly the district court did not agree, explaining that the mere two-level enhancement did not adequately account for the serious nature of Pollock’s actions. Throughout his brief, Pollock himself notes that Clayes was the Government’s “star witness,” id. at 26, and “the only witness in this felon-in-possession prosecution who actually saw a firearm,” id. at 31. This cuts against his attempt to classify his conduct as mere “garden-variety” witness tampering. The district court felt that a more severe punishment was warranted, and we are satisfied with both its justification and length. Finally, Pollock argues that the district court erred procedurally in applying the cross reference found in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c). This section allows a district court to cross reference to a higher base offense level—in this case, the base offense level for criminal sexual abuse found in § 2A3.1—if “the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with the commission … of another offense[.] The Guidelines further define “in connection with” as follows: “if the firearm or ammunition facilitated or had the potential of facilitation, another felony offense or another offense respectively.” § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(a). The district court stated the following at the sentencing hearing with regard to the application of the cross reference: 16 No. 13-2764 On the first issue of cross-referencing, in the calculations of the guideline levels as pursuant to that, I'm going to find for the government and the probation's position as follows: I’m aware that the defendant was acquitted in state court. I’m also aware that this crossreferencing can be applied, whether or not a conviction was obtained. Now having said that, I am—I would say “cautious” in making some determination when there was a jury verdict on the issue, but I am specifically referencing or referring here to then the point in time where I believe—and I realize the standard is by preponderance of the evidence, whereas the jury verdict would have been beyond a reasonable doubt, and to establish a connection with the commission of or attempted commission of another offense. I’m focusing solely on the issue of the .45 caliber weapon. The mention of suicide and what, as my in- terpretation actually, based on Miss Bowyer’s testimony, would be that it would be a murder suicide is what it would be because she wasn’t agreeable to taking her own life. I’m not sure frankly, Mr. Pollock would have either, but there can be no question with the belief of Miss Bowyer at that time was that Mr. Pollock could and would do it; that he was capable of doing it. The restraint of her movement continued throughout this time and at the very least a reasonable inference could be that letting her know what he could do if she went to authorities. So I believe by a preponderance of the evidence on that issue, the government has prevailed. Sentencing Tr. at 98-99. No. 13-2764 17 Before we address the district court’s use of the crossreference, Pollock makes several preliminary challenges to its application. He argues the district court failed to: 1) make the threshold finding that the alleged sexual abuse occurred or explain how it could so find by a preponderance of the evi- dence; 2) state why it credited one of three incon- sistent versions of the event that Bowyer gave in her testimony; and 3) state why it credited Bowyer over Pollock, given the many inconsistencies in her story and the lack of inconsistency in his. Appellant’s Br. at 37. We review these challenges to the factual findings made by the district court for clear error. United States v. Mitchell, 635 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2011). Pollock quibbles that the district court’s findings were not explicit enough. However, we have held that even “in the fact of a paucity of explicit findings by the sentencing judge” implicit findings will suffice as long as there is “suffi- cient, objective evidence in the record” to support the findings. United States v. Locke, 643 F.3d 235, 244-45 (7th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Smith, 218 F.3d 777, 783 (7th Cir. 2000) (“As we have said, these findings may be bare bones and perhaps more could have been done by the court to set forth its reasoning as clearly as possible, but the fact that more could have been said does not compel us to vacate Smith’s sentence.”). Further, all of the above arguments center on the district court’s credibility determinations, which are entitled to “great deference.” Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1021 (7th Cir. 2012). 18 No. 13-2764 Indeed, there was “sufficient, objective evidence in the record” that sexual abuse did occur. The district court acknowledged the fact that Pollock was acquitted of rape, among other charges, in state court—explaining that he was “cautious” in his determination. Nevertheless, the district court correctly noted that the standard for applying the cross reference was preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Bowyer unequivocally testified, in detail, about the events of July 16, 2011, 5 and the district court clearly credited her testimony. In this “he said, she said” scenario—Pollock denied ever raping Bowyer—it is unclear what more Pollock wanted the district court to say. Given Pollock’s prior turbulent relationship and his tendency to blame others for his problems, we cannot say that the district court’s credibility determination and sexual abuse finding were clearly erroneous. In short, the district court crediting Bowyer’s version of events—that a sexual attack did occur—was not clearly erroneous. Finally, we address the applicability of the cross reference. Pollock argues that the Government “did not demonstrate the required nexus between the firearm allegedly referenced by Pollock and the alleged sexual assault” because “the alleged sexual activity was over before any mention of a firearm.” Appellant’s Br. at 44. As noted above, the district 5 Pollock also makes much about Bowyer’s allegedly “internally inconsistent” statements. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 13, n. 11. On July 17, 2011, Bowyer gave a statement to the police, stating that Pollock abducted, raped, and threatened her and told her that he wanted to kill himself. On July 18, 2011, Bowyer clarified that Pollock talked about both of them ending their lives with his .45 caliber gun. We do not find these statements to be inconsistent. No. 13-2764 19 court applied the cross reference, finding that Pollock’s mentioning of the .45 caliber pistol continued to restrain Bowyer’s movement such that she could not report the incident to the police. While the relationship between the sexual abuse and the gun may seem attenuated to Pollock, we concur with the Government’s view: rape is not just an act of sex, but rather is an act of violence used to demean, dominate, and intimidate the victim. Thus, after the sex act was over, Bowyer very much was still under the control of Pollock. We believe that suggesting—or threatening—to kill her after discussing all of the evidence she allegedly “had” against Pollock was sufficiently “in connection with” this act of violence. The district court did not err in applying the cross reference.