Opinion ID: 533568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper Sentencing

Text: 12 Paz argues that the court erred in sentencing him by not reducing his offense level downward either for his minimal or minor role in the offense 1 or for acceptance of responsibility. 2 He then claims that his failure to accept responsibility was improperly considered twice and that the guidelines unconstitutionally penalize the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights. 13 The first two arguments are clearly frivolous. Appellant claims that the court erred by not reducing the offense level to reflect his role as a minimal or minor participant. We will reverse the district court's finding that a defendant is not a minimal or minor participant only if it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 444 (1st Cir.1989). In this case, the jury had already expressed its disbelief of defendant's story by returning a verdict against him. Beyond defendant's story that another had tricked him into transporting the cocaine, there was no evidence of other participants in this importation. The judge's finding that Paz did not play a minimal or minor role was therefore eminently reasonable. Moreover, even if the court had found that Paz was only a courier, he would not automatically be entitled to a reduction. United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989). We affirm the decision of the district court not to reduce the offense level. 14 Paz next claims that he is entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility even though he continues to deny his participation. He argues that, despite the jury's findings, the judge should have believed his story of events and given him credit in sentencing. We do not follow this argument. If Paz does not accept responsibility for committing the offense, he is not entitled to be treated as if he does. 15 Appellant also asserts that the district court improperly considered his failure to accept responsibility twice. He argues that double counting occurred when the court, having already determined that the level of his offense was correct, then considered his denial of responsibility in setting the most severe sentence within the guideline range. In other words, because the level of the offense was premised on there being no acceptance of responsibility, the district court could not again use this factor in deciding where to set Paz's sentence within the range authorized by the guidelines. 16 This argument misunderstands the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines were intended to reduce disparity in the sentencing of different defendants for similar offenses. United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 218 (5th Cir.1989). They do not, however, abrogate entirely the district court's discretion. The guideline range allows the district court some latitude to fine tune the sentence to the individual defendant and the circumstances of the defendant's offense. Id. at 219. 17 In this case, the court applied the correct guideline range in sentencing. Due to the substantial amount of cocaine involved in the incident, the court properly decided that, in the absence of an acceptance of responsibility, it would set the defendant's sentence at the top of the range. This decision is well within the district court's discretion. 18 Appellant makes a final effort to attack his sentence by challenging the constitutionality of the provision that allows a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, section 3E1.1. He claims that this guideline places him in the unconstitutional dilemma of abandoning his right not to incriminate himself or risking a higher sentence. 19 The Eleventh Circuit has recently addressed this argument in United States v. Henry, 883 F.2d 1010 (11th Cir.1989). In Henry, the court rejected the defendant's claim, finding that the guidelines merely codify a tradition of leniency and are not an impermissible burden on the exercise of constitutional rights. As the Henry court noted, the Supreme Court has clearly held that not every burden on a right or encouragement to waive a right is invalid. Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212, 219, 99 S.Ct. 492, 497, 58 L.Ed.2d 466 (1978) (the possibility of a lesser sentence for acceptance of a plea bargain is not an unconstitutional burden); see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 753, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1471, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (a state may extend a benefit to a defendant who shows a willingness to accept responsibility). We follow the Eleventh Circuit in holding that the guidelines' provision for reduction of the offense level based on acceptance of responsibility is not unconstitutional. IV. Improper Role of Judge As Advocate 20 During the course of the defendant's trial testimony, the judge posed a series of questions concerning defendant's travels outside of Colombia. After his questions had been answered, the judge indicated that the prosecutor could continue, saying, I have no doubt in my own mind now. Appellant asserts that the judge improperly usurped the prosecutor's function of cross examination and that the comment prejudiced the jury by revealing the judge's opinion. 21 Because no objection was made at trial, we must consider the remarks under the plain error doctrine. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 75, 82 (1st Cir.1986) (citations omitted). To prevail, the defendant must show that the issue is so compelling as virtually to insure [appellant's] success. Id. 22 As courts repeatedly have noted, the trial judge is more than a mere moderator in a federal trial. United States v. Kandiel, 865 F.2d 967, 973 (8th Cir.1989). 23 [The trial judge] has the prerogative, and at times the duty, of eliciting facts he deems necessary to the clear presentation of issues. To this end he may examine witnesses who testify, so long as he preserves an attitude of impartiality and guards against giving the jury an impression that the court believes the defendant is guilty. 24 Llach v. United States, 739 F.2d 1322, 1329-1330 (8th Cir.1984). The defendant's testimony was undeniably confusing concerning the dates of his employment and travel. The judge's questions were an attempt to clarify the sequence of events. In this context, the questions were not inappropriate. We would, however, caution judges to exercise great care in the use of phrases such as I have no doubt. In a criminal trial, where possession of doubt is the critical standard jurors are instructed to apply, such a comment may be misunderstood. 25 In any event, the defendant was not prejudiced by the questions and comment. The conflict between the defendant's testimony and the documents he carried was apparent from prior and subsequent testimony. In addition, the judge carefully instructed the jury that his questions and comments were not to be taken as an indication of his opinion about the defendant's guilt or innocence. We believe that any possible prejudice was corrected by this instruction. However, even if there was some residual harm, it does not rise to the level of plain error.