Opinion ID: 814614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the guideline sentence

Text: We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Holt, 510 F.3d 1007, 1010 (9th Cir. 2007). Factual determinations at sentencing are reviewed for clear error, and the application of the Guidelines to the facts is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. “Clear error is not demonstrated by pointing to conflicting evidence in the record.” United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 1991). Instead, “[a] finding of fact is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Harries v. United States, 350 F.2d 231, 235 (9th Cir. 1965). Here, the district court calculated Yi’s total offense level as 31 under the Guidelines. In reaching that level, the court applied, and Yi now challenges, two enhancements: a ninelevel enhancement for committing an environmental offense that “resulted in a substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury,” § 2Q1.2(b)(2); and a four-level enhancement for being “an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants,” § 3B1.1(a). The enhancements resulted in a sentencing range of 108–135 months. However, the court granted several downward 10 UNITED STATES V . YI departures, resulting in a final sentencing range of 51–63 months. Ultimately, the court sentenced Yi to 48 months. A. Substantial Likelihood of Death or Serious Bodily Injury We look to whether the district court’s application of a nine-level increase for an offense resulting in a substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury was supported by clear and convincing evidence. See United States v. Staten, 466 F.3d 708, 720 (9th Cir. 2006). Clear and convincing evidence creates a conviction that the factual contention is “highly probable.” Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984). Evidence presented at trial showed that the work crew removing the Forest Glen ceilings did not wear proper respirators, were exposed to dry ceiling material, and that onsite dust far exceeded industry-recommended levels of asbestos. The evidence at sentencing, aside from the actual on-site conduct, came primarily from an EPA letter discussing chrysotile—the form of asbestos present at Forest Glen. The letter supports finding that chrysotile is carcinogenic. Contrary to the defense expert’s report, the EPA letter noted a lack of evidence to support using different toxicity factors for different types of asbestos. Even if the evidence did support this approach, it would not disturb the EPA’s baseline conclusion that chrysotile is a carcinogen. Moreover, studies cited in the letter support finding increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis, and cancer of the pleura from exposure to the chrysotile form of asbestos. UNITED STATES V . YI 11 In addition to the EPA letter, the district court also appeared to rely on United States v. Pearson, 274 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2001), where this court wrote: The federal government has recognized asbestos as a health hazard and it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos can cause mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer; and cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, and rectum. Pearson’s noncompliance with the work practice standards created a substantial likelihood that workers would be exposed to life-threatening asbestos fibers. Id. at 1235 (citation omitted). Yi argues that Pearson involved a different type of asbestos and is therefore inapplicable. However, the opinion makes no such legal distinction. In sum, the combined evidence of the removal crew’s on-site conduct and the potential harm from inhaling any form of asbestos places the district court’s finding outside the realm of clear error. Yi’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, he contends the government failed to provide an expert to establish the foundation for the enhancement. But there is no such requirement. Second, Yi contends the district court improperly rejected his own expert’s testimony. But the district court both considered and permissibly gave little or no weight to the defense expert’s opinion. Yi attempts to compare this case to United States v. Altman, 901 F.2d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 1990), but there the district court refused to hear the proffered expert testimony. The record here clearly reflects that the district court considered the expert report. 12 UNITED STATES V . YI Yi’s more forceful contention is that the district court should have given his expert’s opinion more weight. Generally, the trier of fact is entrusted with discretion in weighing evidence. See In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893, 902 (9th Cir. 2005). There is no reason to believe the district court abused its discretion, even assuming it largely discounted the expert opinion. The expert report can be summed up as stating: (1) chrysotile is different in form from other types of asbestos; (2) chrysotile is less “toxic”; (3) the Forest Glen work crew wetted down ceiling materials while working; (4) the work crew wore respirators; (5) the ceilings contained less than 10% chrysotile; and (6) the work crew’s low level of exposure combined with the supposed lower toxicity of chrysotile resulted in an insufficient likelihood of death or serious bodily injury. However, the contrary evidence detailed above entitled the district court to weigh all the facts and reject the expert’s opinion. Yi also complains that the district court improperly discounted the report based upon the expert’s lack of medical or molecular biology training. But the district court’s inquiry into training merely created a basis for discounting the expert’s medical opinions as to toxicity and likelihood of harm. This was well within the district court’s discretion. The only seemingly uncontroverted statement in the expert report, that chrysotile is different in form from other types of asbestos, did not require the district court to adopt the expert’s opinion as to likelihood of harm. The district court’s failure to give the expert opinion more weight was not an abuse of discretion and the ultimate finding was not clear error. UNITED STATES V . YI 13 B. Organizer or Leader Role The district court also found that Yi fit the role of an organizer or leader calling for a four-level increase. That finding requires evidence “that the defendant exercised some control over others involved in the commission of the offense or was responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.” United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis omitted) (citing United States v. Avila, 95 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1996)). It must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Avila, 95 F.3d at 889. This finding is also reviewed for clear error. United States v. Ponce, 51 F.3d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1995). Numerous facts support the role enhancement. Yi’s conviction plus substantial evidence at trial support the conclusion that he knew the ceilings contained asbestos.1 Testimony showed that Yi was heavily involved in decisionmaking with regard to Forest Glen, particularly given the inexperience of Millennium project managers and Yoon in particular. Evidence showed: Yi earlier instructed Yoon to seek bids for asbestos abatement; Yi rejected abatement bids; Millennium employees awaited Yi’s ultimate approval prior to removal; and Yi instructed Yoon to draw up the contract for ceiling scraping. These facts support a permissible inference that Yi directed the ceilings be scraped, approving both the expenditure and the work itself, rather than simply placing his signature on a check made out to the contractor. The district court did not clearly err in finding by a 1 Even if the jury only found Yi guilty under a deliberate ignorance theory, that finding is legally equivalent to knowledge. United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 702–03 (9th Cir. 1976). 14 UNITED STATES V . YI preponderance of the evidence that Yi was an organizer or leader. Yi paints the district court’s finding as the result of an improper “but for” test. It would be improper to find that Yi organized or led a criminal activity merely because the activity could not have been completed but for his knowledge and participation. United States v. Lopez-Sandoval, 146 F.3d 712, 717 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Harper, 33 F.3d 1143, 1151 (9th Cir. 1994). At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel explained that Yi was required to approve expenditures over a few thousand dollars, at which point the district judge asked, “[m]y question is if [Yi] doesn’t okay it, we’re [not] here today. There’s nobody else that made this decision. He was the final arbiter; correct?” Defense counsel agreed. This colloquy shows the enhancement was not based on on the necessity of Yi’s involvement as the check signer, but rather on Yi’s direction or control. The district court did not apply an incorrect legal test, and the application of the role enhancement was proper. AFFIRMED.