Opinion ID: 173201
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Double-Counting the Robbery

Text: Because the PSR found that Mr. Hylton had committed the grocery store robbery upon his escape from custody, the PSR did not apply U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3), which provides for a four-level specific-offense downward adjustment if the defendant’s escape is from a non-secure community corrections center or halfway house, “[p]rovided, however, that this reduction shall not apply if the defendant, while away from the facility, committed any federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or more.” According to Mr. Hylton, by considering the grocery robbery as a basis for the upward departure, the district court wrongfully punished him twice for a crime he may not have committed and without the protections afforded by a trial. To the extent Mr. Hylton contends that the district court could not use the same facts to apply (or, in this case, to refuse to apply) a particular Guideline provision in addition to support an upward variance, we disagree. “[D]istrict courts have broad discretion to consider particular facts in fashioning a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), even when those facts are already accounted for in the advisory Guidelines range.” United States v. Alapizco-Valenzuela, 546 F.3d 1208, 1222 (10th Cir. 2008). “Accordingly, a district court does not commit procedural error when it relies on the same facts to support both an enhancement and a variance, so long as it articulates specifically -6- the reasons that this particular defendant’s situation is different from the ordinary situation covered by the guidelines calculation.” Id. at 1222–23 (quotations and alterations omitted). “This explanation need not be overly detailed.” Id. at 1223 (quotations omitted). In this case, the district court recognized that the robbery had rendered Mr. Hylton ineligible for the § 2P1.1(b)(3) reduction but also explained that had he been convicted of the offense in state court, he would have faced an even more severe repercussion of at least ten years in state prison. The court thus concluded that Mr. Hylton “paid a price . . . for that offense, but I don’t think that is in keeping with the seriousness of the offense.” In our view, this adequately explained why Mr. Hylton’s situation differed from the ordinary situation encompassed by the Guidelines. The district court thus did not procedurally err in using the robbery to support the variance. Moreover, Mr. Hylton was not entitled to have a jury determine whether he committed the grocery store robbery before the district court could use that fact at sentencing. It is well-established that under a discretionary Guidelines regime, a court may find facts relevant to sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Hall, 473 F.3d 1295, 1312 (10th Cir. 2007). 2. Failing to Give Proper Weight to Mitigating Evidence Finally, Mr. Hylton argues that the variance is unreasonable because the district court failed to give proper weight to testimony at sentencing regarding his participation in work therapy at a Salvation Army Rehabilitation Center after his escape from the halfway house. We disagree. Although the court did not impose the sentence Mr. Hylton -7- requested, the court did account for this testimony in rejecting the government’s request for a 60-month sentence (the statutory maximum) and instead imposing a 48-month sentence. Giving due deference, as we must, to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors justify the variance, see Sayad, 589 F.3d at 1116, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in selecting Mr. Hylton’s particular sentence.