Opinion ID: 178904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Holcomb's sentence is procedurally reasonable

Text: When reviewing a sentence for procedural reasonableness, we look at three factors: whether the district court (1) properly calculated the applicable advisory Guidelines range; (2) considered the other § 3553(a) factors as well as the parties' arguments for a sentence outside the Guidelines range; and (3) adequately articulated its reasoning for imposing the particular sentence chosen. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir.2007). To determine if the district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range, we review the district court's findings of fact under the clear-error standard and its legal conclusions regarding application of the Guidelines de novo. Id. at 579. Holcomb argues that the district court miscalculated the applicable Guidelines range as a matter of law when it denied him the seven-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2). He asserts that FPC Ashland is a nonsecure facility to which he returned voluntarily. Holcomb does not challenge the court's factual findings regarding the question of whether he voluntarily returned to the camp, but rather the application of the returned voluntarily standard to those facts. Because Holcomb was already a confined inmate as a result of his participation in a marijuana conspiracy, his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(a)(1) is level 13. The district court denied Holcomb the seven-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2) based on its finding that he did not voluntarily return to FPC Ashland. Since this finding alone is sufficient to deny Holcomb the reduction, the court did not make any findings regarding whether the camp is a nonsecure facility. We review de novo the district court's conclusion that Holcomb did not voluntarily return to the camp, as well as its denial of the seven-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2). See Bolds, 511 F.3d at 579. The question of what constitutes a voluntary return for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2) is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Application Note 2 in U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1 states that `returned voluntarily' includes voluntarily returning to the institution or turning one's self in to a law enforcement authority as an escapee (not in connection with an arrest or other charges). U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1 cmt. n. 2. Several circuits have discussed Application Note 2. Among them is the Ninth Circuit, where it held in United States v. Blandin, 435 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2006), that regardless of whether [the defendant] had formed the subjective intent voluntarily to surrender, his return to custody cannot be considered voluntary under § 2P1.1.(b)(2) because his willingness to cooperate arose in connection with his arrest for trespassing. Similarly, in United States v. King, 338 F.3d 794, 799 (7th Cir.2003), the Seventh Circuit held that an inmate's willingness to cooperate with a correctional officer only after learning that he could return with the officer or be chased down by the marshals was not the type of voluntary return contemplated by U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2). And the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Pynes, 5 F.3d 1139, 1140-41 (8th Cir.1993), that even though the defendant had already arranged for a ride to turn himself in, his return was not voluntary because he surrendered only when he saw deputy marshals crossing the street to find and arrest him. Like the defendants in Blandin, King, and Pynes, Holcomb surrendered only after he was faced with the imminent prospect of being arrested. He and his codefendants left FPC Ashland without permission. After visiting the Knights Inn, Crockwell drove all four men back to the camp, pulled up to the entrance of FPC Ashland, and stopped the car. But none of the defendants exited the car after Crockwell informed them that a sheriff's deputy was in the vehicle behind them. The defendants were transported back to FCI Ashland by camp officials only after the deputy approached the car at the gas station and realized that the four men inside were dressed in prison uniforms. Holcomb argues that the circumstances surrounding his escape are sufficient to find that he voluntarily returned to FPC Ashland within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2). His arguments fail for several reasons. First, Holcomb did not return to the camp when he had the opportunity to do so; i.e., when Crockwell drove him and the other three inmates back from the Knights Inn. He could have gotten out of the car at that point and turned himself in. Holcomb's subjective intent to return prior to Crockwell driving away is not sufficient to support a finding that in fact he voluntarily returned. See Blandin, 435 F.3d at 1194-95. Further, Holcomb admitted his status as an FPC Ashland inmate only after the sheriff's deputy had pulled over the car in which he was riding. We join the other circuits that have addressed this issue and find that a willingness to cooperate arising in connection with the possibility of imminent arrest is not the type of voluntary behavior that U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2)'s seven-level downward departure is intended to reward. See id. at 1194; King, 338 F.3d at 799; Pynes, 5 F.3d at 1140-41. Consequently, Holcomb did not voluntarily return to FPC Ashland within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2), and he is therefore not entitled to a seven-level downward departure in his offense level. Because the question of whether Holcomb voluntarily returned to FPC Ashland is dispositive, we have no need to determine whether FPC Ashland is a nonsecure facility. We must next determine whether the district court properly calculated the applicable Guidelines range. Because Holcomb is not entitled to the seven-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(2), his base offense level is 13. The court correctly granted him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), which resulted in a base offense level of 11. Based on prior criminal-history points and the points added for the escape, Holcomb has a criminal history category of III. The Guidelines range for a total offense level of 11, combined with a criminal history category of III, is 12 to 18 months of imprisonment, as correctly determined by the district court. We must also decide whether the district court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors in determining Holcomb's sentence. During sentencing, the court addressed the § 3553(a) factors collectively for all four defendants because the nature and circumstances of the crime were the same for each. In considering the need for the sentence imposed, the court explained that because the escape in this case was factually different from more serious escapes, it would impose a below-Guidelines sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. The district court also heard arguments from both sides as to whether the sentence should be served consecutively or concurrently. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a) recommends that a sentence for escape be served consecutive to any undischarged term of incarceration because the offense was committed while the defendant was already serving a term of imprisonment. The court followed this recommendation, reasoning that granting a concurrent sentence would be inappropriate in this case because it would send the wrong message to others who are considering escaping from prison. It also addressed the need for avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities by sentencing Holcomb and two of the other escapees with similar criminal histories to the identical, below-Guidelines, 10-month term of imprisonment. We must finally determine whether the district court sufficiently articulated its reasons for the sentence chosen. As noted above, the court discussed with particularity the relevant § 3553(a) factors and why it found that Holcomb had not voluntarily returned to FPC Ashland. The court also heard and addressed arguments from both sides on what they deemed to be the correct sentence. Further, the court thoroughly explained why it decided to impose a below-Guidelines sentence. The court's decision was well-reasoned and sufficiently detailed to easily pass muster as procedurally reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (stating that [t]he appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail ... depends upon circumstances).