Opinion ID: 657113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The United States' Challenges under the Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 24 The United States has filed a separate appeal challenging two of the court's determinations under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. First, the government contends that the district court erred when it refused to enhance the defendant's sentence for obstruction of justice. Second, the government claims that the court erred when it decided to depart downward in light of the defendant's criminal history. 25 We review the district court's factual findings made pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error. United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1181-82 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1038 (1990). Accordingly, we will not reverse unless the court's findings have no factual support in the record, or if after reviewing all the evidence we are left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 1182. As the Supreme Court recently noted: 26 The selection of the appropriate sentence from within the guideline range, as well as the decision to depart from the range in certain circumstances, are decisions that are left solely to the sentencing court. The development of the guideline sentencing regime has not changed our view that, except to the extent specifically directed by statute, it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence. 27 Williams v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1121 (1992) (citations omitted). 28 The government requested a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 based on the car chase. The district court found that the two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment doesn't apply because the defendant's action didn't create a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. The government would have us find that the car chase was inherently dangerous. This we decline to do. The sparse evidence on the record does not convince us that the district court clearly erred. There is no evidence that the chase involved excessive speeds or otherwise presented a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Although the chase ended in an accident, that is not sufficient by itself to require the court to give a two-point enhancement under 3C1.1. Thus, we will not reverse the district court on this issue. 29 The government also objects to the district court's decision to depart downward based on the defendant's criminal history. The court found that 30 the defendant's criminal history is limited to one municipal court violation for discharging a weapon in public and one for a public place [sic] and one misdemeanor conviction for possession of less than one 31 ounce of marijuana. I find that record is substantially less serious than that of most defendants in the same criminal history category of Roman Numeral II. The court will depart downward to category 1, Roman Numeral I, which the court feels is more appropriate to this defendant's criminal history. I believe that that more accurately reflects the seriousness of her past criminal conduct and the likelihood that she would commit further crimes. 32 Sent. Tr. at 30. The government argues that because the prior drug offense concerned somewhat similar conduct and because the offense concerning the gun, although a municipal offense, was covered by state law, the district court's downward departure was unwarranted. In light of the court's finding that the defendant's criminal record is substantially less serious than that of most defendants in the same criminal history category, Sent. Tr. at 30, we are unable to find that the district court committed clear error when it concluded that the defendant's criminal record over-represents her criminal history, Aplee. Apx. at 8, and decided to depart downward.