Opinion ID: 2978061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecution’s refusal to move for a third point

Text: The initial PSR, dated February 7, 2007, recommended that Lapsins receive a full three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, finding that a letter he had submitted to the court revealed that he had accepted responsibility and that his decision to plead guilty had permitted the government to avoid preparing for trial. In a March 2, 2007 memorandum to the United States Probation Office (“USPO”), Lapsins lodged a number of objections to the description of his offense contained in the initial PSR. In particular, Lapsins denied that he had created a Yahoo! “group,” attempting to distinguish a Yahoo! “photos” website from a Yahoo! “groups” website. He also stated that he “denies ever having had a Yahoo group, and the government has presented no evidence of such,” and that he “emphatically denies ever having started a child pornography Yahoo group.” (Docs. Under Seal 51-52.1) He also objected to a statement in the PSR that he owned and controlled the membership of a 1 “Docs. Under Seal” refers to a document, separate from the ROA, that is listed on the appellate docket sheet as “Pre-sentence report” bearing the title “Documents Under Seal.” No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 13 Yahoo! group. The Government argued that these statements directly contradicted Lapsins’s prior sworn admission in the “Statement of Facts” attached to his plea agreement that he “had created the Yahoo Group ‘budmanoh69,’” which “facilitated the distribution and sharing of child pornography.” (ROA 178.) In his memorandum to the USPO, Lapsins also denied the statement in the PSR that he uploaded 132 images to the budmanoh69 Yahoo! group on November 14, 2005, claiming that his screen-name had been stolen. Lapsins also objected to the PSR’s statement about the number of photographs and videos he had possessed and uploaded to the budmanoh69 site, arguing that “[b]ecause there is no proof or substantiation of these allegations, they should be stricken from the record.” (Docs. Under Seal 52.) As a result of these objections, the USPO, in a revised PSR dated March 23, 2007, changed its position and recommended that Lapsins not receive any reduction for acceptance of responsibility because, although he had “made a statement detailing his involvement in the instant offense,” he “later denied portions of the Statement of Facts.” (Docs. Under Seal 34.) At an evidentiary hearing to address Lapsins’s objections to the initial PSR, the prosecutor argued that “[Lapsins] is either lying then or he’s lying now and he’s subject to a perjury prosecution, and it would be inappropriate for this Court to grant him acceptance of responsibility having previously stated under oath that the Statement of Facts is accurate yet stand[ing] here today denying [it].” (ROA II,2 Sept. 26, 2007 Evid. Hr’g 21.) The prosecutor also stated, “if I were in [defense counsel’s] shoes, Your Honor, I would simply withdraw the objection . . . . Then there is no possibility of there being anything contrary . . . . Whether he distributed 132 images on a particular day or 400 on another day doesn’t affect the Guidelines.” (Id. 21-22.) In response to this argument, Lapsins’s counsel withdrew the objections. 2 “ROA II” refers to a document listed on the appellate docket sheet as “Record on Appeal, Transcripts, Filed. Vol 2.” This non-indexed, non-consecutively paged document contains transcripts of several proceedings, including the suppression hearing and sentencing hearing. Accordingly, citations herein to ROA II include names of specific documents and page numbers within those documents. No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 14 At sentencing, the Government urged the district court not to award any reduction for acceptance of responsibility, claiming that Lapsins’s objections to the initial PSR, as well as a sentencing memorandum he filed just prior to sentencing that used the word “allegedly” to describe acts to which Lapsins had pleaded guilty, showed that he had not accepted responsibility. In addition, the prosecutor stated: “Clearly, the [G]overnment is not going to give that third point [under § 3E1.1(b)].” (ROA II, Sent’g Hr’g 6.) The prosecutor argued that he was entitled to refuse to move for a reduction because the plea agreement stated that if Lapsins made false statements or misrepresentations to any government entity following his plea, the Government would not be obligated to make certain recommendations in his favor, including moving for a one-point reduction under § 3E1.1(b). The district judge was not persuaded by the prosecutor or the USPO, and he determined that Lapsins’s Statement of Facts and guilty plea merited a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a). At sentencing, the district judge made no comment about the Government’s decision not to move for an additional one-point reduction. The judge went on to calculate a Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months, and sentenced Lapsins to 168 months’ imprisonment. (If the Government had moved for the additional one-point reduction, the recommended range would have been 151 to 188 months.) 3. The prosecutor was not required to move for the additional reduction The Government urges that we should review for plain error the district court’s failure to require the prosecution to move for the additional point, claiming that Lapsins’s counsel did not specifically object to the Government’s decision not to move for the additional point. Lapsins points out that he had already argued several times, including during the sentencing hearing, that his objections to the PSR did not indicate an unwillingness to accept responsibility. We need not resolve this question because Lapsins’s argument fails even under a de novo standard of review. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) commits the decision whether to file a motion for an additional one-point reduction to the government’s discretion, and we have held that this discretion is subject to the limitation that the government may not act with a No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 15 constitutionally impermissible motive. See Smith, 429 F.3d at 628 (citing Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 186-87 (1992) (holding that prosecutor’s decision not to move for a sentence reduction for substantial assistance must bear a rational relation to legitimate government end and must not be based on factors such as religion, sex, or race)); see also United States v. Drennon, 516 F.3d 160, 162-63 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that the prosecutor’s decision not to move for a § 3E1.1(b) reduction is entitled to “full deference” unless the record shows the decision was attributable to an unconstitutional motive); United States v. Espinoza-Cano, 456 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant must present objective evidence of an improper motive or arbitrary action to overcome government’s decision not to move for reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)). This case differs from the typical case involving § 3E1.1(b) because the government’s decision to move for the reduction is usually based on whether the defendant pleaded guilty early enough to save the government the expense of preparing for trial. See, e.g., Smith, 429 F.3d at 628 (explaining that the government is given the discretion to move for the reduction or not because it is in the best position to know whether the defendant’s cooperation and acceptance of responsibility have allowed the government to preserve resources); see also U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.6 (same). Although the Government argues in its brief that Lapsins did not save it the resources he might have, it is apparent that the real reason the Government refused to move for the reduction was that “the defendant made objections to the initial PSR that were contradictory to statements he had sworn to in the signed Statement of Facts. Because of this less than candid position, the government felt the defendant was no longer deserving of acceptance of responsibility.” (Gov’t Br. 39.) The record makes clear that the prosecutor did not believe that Lapsins had fully accepted responsibility for his actions. (See, e.g., ROA II, Sent’g Hr’g 23 (“[H]e continues to use the word ‘allegedly.’ This is an individual who still can’t wrap his brain around his conduct . . . . It’s not allegedly anymore. Come on. Just admit it, once.”).) Section 3E1.1(b) does not state that the prosecutor can refuse to move for the reduction because he does not agree with the district court’s determination that the No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 16 defendant has accepted responsibility, and the text of the provision focuses on whether the defendant has allowed the government to avoid preparing for trial. This might suggest that the government is required to base its decision about whether to move for the reduction solely on whether the defendant has saved the government resources. However, the Second Circuit recently addressed this issue and held that the government is entitled to refuse to move for the reduction based on its belief that the defendant has not genuinely accepted responsibility, even if the district court awards a two-point reduction under § 3E1.1(a). See United States v. Sloley, 464 F.3d 355, 359 (2d Cir. 2006). The Second Circuit found that to hold otherwise would be to ignore both the plain language of § 3E1.1(b), which allows for the reduction “upon motion of the government,” and comment 6 to that section, which states that “an adjustment under subsection (b) may only be granted upon formal motion by the government.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) & cmt. 6; Sloley, 464 F.3d at 359. The Slolely court also reasoned that subsection (b) would be rendered a nullity if the government were required to agree with the court’s assessment of acceptance of responsibility: “Section 3E1.1 is crafted and structured in a manner that divides the power to reduce a defendant’s offense level for acceptance of responsibility between the sentencing court and the prosecutor. Such a division of power . . . implicitly contemplates situations in which a court may find acceptance of responsibility while the government prosecutor may not.” Sloley, 464 F.3d at 359. We find the Second Circuit’s reasoning persuasive. While on its face § 3E1.1(b) does not appear to contemplate the prosecutor’s refusal to move for the point for any reason other than the wasting of government resources, to hold that the district court could compel the government to make the motion would be directly contrary to the section’s commitment of this decision to the government’s discretion. Therefore, we conclude that the government may decline to move for a reduction under § 3E1.1(b) so long as the decision does not rest on a constitutionally impermissible factor and is not arbitrary. See Wade, 504 U.S. at 186-86; Smith, 429 F.3d at 628. We do not reach the situation in which the prosecutor has promised, as a condition of the defendant’s guilty plea, to move for the reduction because Lapsins’s counsel conceded at oral argument that no such promise was made in this case. As No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 17 Lapsins does not allege that the Government acted based on a constitutionally impermissible factor, the question remaining is whether the Government’s decision not to move for the reduction was arbitrary. Lapsins essentially argues that the prosecutor’s decision was arbitrary because there was no valid reason for him to conclude that Lapsins had not accepted responsibility. On the contrary, Lapsins claims, the record shows that he was truly remorseful for his crimes, and the prosecutor misinterpreted defense counsel’s use of the word “allegedly” and filing of various factual objections to the PSR as manifesting Lapsins’s refusal to accept responsibility, when in fact they merely represented legal strategy by defense counsel. While it is true that Lapsins’s counsel withdrew the objections to the PSR (under pressure from the prosecutor), and while the use of “allegedly” may not be a good indicator of Lapsins’s own mindset, the record nonetheless shows that Lapsins attempted to retract his admission to forming a Yahoo! group devoted to child pornography. For example, at the September 26, 2007 evidentiary hearing (which post-dated Lapsins’s sworn admissions in the Statement of Facts) after conferring with Lapsins, defense counsel stated to the district judge, “He is claiming he did not create the group.” (See ROA II, Sept. 26, 2007 Evid. Hr’g 19); cf. Sloley, 464 F.3d at 361 (“[T]he record shows that Sloley’s reneging on his admission . . . made in the plea agreement . . . is what led the government to conclude that he had not accepted responsibility.”). Given that Lapsins denied his prior sworn admissions, that § 3E1.1(b) commits the decision whether to move for the reduction to the discretion of the prosecutor, and that the record shows that the prosecutor believed in good faith that Lapsins had not accepted responsibility, we hold that the prosecutor’s decision not to move for the reduction was permissible. No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 18 C. Reasonableness of sentence 1. Lapsins’s claims of sentencing error Lapsins claims his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider certain arguments relating to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and gave only a conclusory explanation of his sentencing decision. While Lapsins generally frames his argument as one of procedural unreasonableness, he appears to assert a substantive unreasonableness claim as well. At the outset, it is worth noting that the district judge was generous to Lapsins in several respects: he granted Lapsins a downward variance from Criminal History Category II to Category I, finding that “based upon the prior conduct of the defendant, [Criminal History Category II] overstates his – it over-represents his criminal history, and so I’m going to make a variance pursuant to [U.S.S.G. §] 4A1.3 to indicate that he has a Criminal History Level of I.” (ROA II, Sent’g Hr’g 11-12.); he granted Lapsins a two-point reduction in Criminal Offense Level for acceptance of responsibility despite the USPO’s recommendation to the contrary; and he sentenced Lapsins at the bottom of the recommended Guidelines range. Lapsins claims that the court failed to consider his asserted “relatively low chance of recidivism,” his “strong, dedicated support system,” his “shame and guilt,” his successful work history, his “willingness and desire to seek counseling,” and the fact that he was battling a substance abuse problem, all of which, Lapsins claims, pointed to a below-Guidelines sentence. (Lapsins Br. 44-46.) In addition, Lapsins argues that the district court failed to address his arguments that a below-Guidelines sentence would be sufficient to provide specific deterrence and that a long incarceration would interfere with his ability to seek treatment and counseling. Lapsins also argues that the district court failed to address his argument that he should receive a significant downward departure similar to that upheld on appeal by this Court in United States v. Cherry, 487 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2007), because the circumstances of the two defendants are similar, and to refuse to give Lapsins a similar departure would result in an unwarranted sentencing discrepancy. No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 19 2. Standard of review Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we review a district court’s sentencing decisions “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” for reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007); United States v. Stephens, 549 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2008). This inquiry has both a procedural and a substantive component. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court failed to calculate (or improperly calculated) the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed adequately to explain the chosen sentence. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact at sentencing for clear error. See United States v. Hunt, 487 F.3d 347, 350 (6th Cir. 2007). If a sentence is procedurally sound, we then consider its substantive reasonableness. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court “selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008). Sentences imposed within a properly-calculated Guidelines range enjoy a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (“[A] court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines.”). After the district judge announced Lapsins’s sentence, he asked both counsel for objections, and defense counsel stated that he had no objections other than those already raised. Because Lapsins did not object to the district court’s explanation of the § 3553(a) factors, we review Lapsins’s challenge to the sufficiency of that explanation for plain error. See Vonner, 516 F.3d at 386. This requires Lapsins to show (1) error (2) that “was obvious or clear,” (3) that “affected defendant’s substantial rights,” and (4) that No. 07-4387 United States v. Lapsins Page 20 “affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).