Opinion ID: 702959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court's Application of Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 7 Lutz argues that the district court should have applied the 1988 version of U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3 when it imposed his sentence. The presentence report indicates that the 1988 version of the Sentencing Guidelines was used; thus, Lutz cannot sustain an ex post facto claim. See United States v. Garcia-Cruz, 40 F.3d 986, 987 (9th Cir. 1994) ([w]here application of the amended version results in a harsher sentence, the district court should apply an earlier version not posing an ex post facto problem).
8 Lutz contends that his sentence violates due process because imposing a consecutive sentence was contrary to the language of U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3. We disagree. U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3 states: 9 If at the time of sentencing, the defendant is already serving one or more unexpired sentences, then the sentences for the instant offense(s) shall run consecutively to such unexpired sentences, unless one or more of the instant offense(s) arose out of the same transactions or occurrences as the unexpired sentences. In the latter case, such instant sentences and the unexpired sentence shall run concurrently, except to the extent otherwise required by law. 10 U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3 (1988); see also U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 289. Although Sec. 5G1.3 appears to require concurrent sentences if the same transaction is involved, we have held that it is subservient to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3584(a), which makes the decision whether to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence a matter of the trial judge's discretion. United States v. Burns, 894 F.2d 334, 337 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Wills, 881 F.2d 823, 826 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also United States v. Conkins, 9 F.3d 1377, 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) (listing factors to be considered when district court determines whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences). 11 Lutz argues that his sentence in CR-S-89-297 should have run concurrently, rather than consecutively, to his sentence in CR-S-89-270 because the offenses in the two indictments arose out of the same transaction. However, even if the offenses had arisen out of the same transaction, the district court could still have imposed consecutive sentences. See Burns, 894 F.2d at 337. Before sentencing Lutz, the district court considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities between Lutz and his codefendants, the serious nature of Lutz's offense, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. See Conkins, 9 F.3d at 1385. 12 Lutz also seems to argue that he would have received a shorter sentence under U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.2(b) (sentencing on multiple counts of conviction). However, unlike the amended version of U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3, the 1988 version of Sec. 5G1.3 does not recommend Sec. 5G1.2 as a methodology by which a court may determine a defendant's sentence. Compare U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3 (1988) with U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.3 (1990). Moreover, Sec. 5G1.2 was inapplicable. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 5G1.2, comment. (1988) ([t]his section applies to multiple counts of conviction (1) contained in the same indictment or information, or (2) contained in different indictments or informations for which sentences are to be imposed at the same time or in a consolidated proceeding).