Opinion ID: 755506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Re-Sentencing by District Court

Text: 18 On remand, the district court clarified the record by indicating that it departed upward under Application Note 8 based on a threat to Ms. Wynn's life. In support of its clarification of the record, the court cited Steven Wynn's testimony regarding the phone call he received after Kevin was kidnapped: 19 MR. WYNN: [The caller] said, listen carefully, we've got your daughter, she has not been harmed, she will not be harmed if you do exactly what we say, listen carefully, she has not seen us, she cannot identify us, she is safe, if you want to see her alive again, you'll do exactly what we say ... don't talk to anyone for the sake of your daughter if you want to see her again, a man named Voss will call you at the cage and give you instructions. 20 (Emphasis added.) After citing Steven Wynn's testimony, the district court concluded by stating that: Accordingly, the Court finds that the record supports a finding that the defendants expressly threatened Mr. Wynn with the life of his daughter. 21 The district court's conclusion that the record does support a finding that Ms. Wynn's life was threatened is contrary to this court's conclusion in Sherwood I that the present record does not support a finding that Ms. Wynn's life was ever threatened. Sherwood I, 98 F.3d at 415. 3 The district court thus abused its discretion by ignoring our finding in Sherwood I unless there was a valid basis for its departure from the law of the case.D. Clear Error 22 In the present case, the district court was justified in departing from the law of the case because our previous conclusion in Sherwood I was clearly erroneous. See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876 (stating that a court may depart from the law of the case if the first decision was clearly erroneous). 23 The record before us in Sherwood I did contain testimony from Steven Wynn that revealed that Ms. Wynn's life was threatened. Steven Wynn testified that the kidnapper told him if you want to see [Kevin] alive again, you'll do exactly what we say.... Steven Wynn also testified that the defendants told him that his daughter would not be harmed if [Steven did] exactly what [they said].... Mr. Wynn further testified that after he received the call, he told his driver: listen, Kevin's been kidnapped and they say if I ever want to see her alive again I've got to go the hotel and do what they say.... Finally, Steven Wynn testified that while he was waiting for the kidnappers to call back, all [he] could think of was Kevin and that someone had her, that she was well, and that someone was standing near her or with her that was coldbloodedly contemplating killing her. These statements clearly demonstrate that Ms. Wynn's life was threatened and that Steven Wynn understood and reacted to the threat to his daughter. 24 But in the Sherwood I appeal, the parties did not argue or brief the issue whether there was a threat to Ms. Wynn's life. Moreover, the Sherwood I opinion did not discuss Steven Wynn's testimony or explain why his testimony did not support a finding that there was a threat to Ms. Wynn's life. This testimony was apparently overlooked when another panel of this court decided Sherwood I. The statement in Sherwood I that the present record does not support a finding that Ms. Wynn's life was ever threatened was clearly erroneous. That being the case, we now affirm the district court's decision to upwardly depart.