Opinion ID: 1399686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Two Elk's Objection to the District Court's Factual Findings

Text: During the sentencing hearing, the trial judge stated: The defendant told the two FBI agents that he did commit this offense and that he put his hand over the victim's mouth to keep her from awakening somebody. He denied this at trial, but I find that he did use force to sustainto hold the victim down, if you will, and to prevent the victim from screaming. And that's in addition to the great discrepancy here in the size and weight of the defendant compared to the victim. The court thus felt the enhancement was justified. Two Elk disputes three aspects of the court's factual findings: (1) that he put his hand over the victim's mouth to keep her from awakening anyone; (2) that he held the victim down; and (3) that he used force to prevent the victim from screaming. As Two Elk concedes, the transcript of his recorded confession reveals that he lifted A.R. from a mattress on the floor and placed her on a bed and that he covered her mouth with his hand to muffle her cries. However, because the transcript offers no clue as to whether A.R. was screaming or whether Two Elk held A.R. down, Two Elk contends that the judge clearly erred in drawing inferences from the record. There was more than enough evidence in the record to support the sentencing court's findings of fact. Two Elk's argument parses the court's language in excruciating detail. Yet the court need not repeat the record verbatim to enter a valid factual finding. And nothing the court found misstated the evidence in the record. Rather, the court's findings fairly accurately reflect Two Elk's admissions and hence they were not clearly erroneous. See Farrington, 499 F.3d at 859 ([A]s long as the determination is plausible in light of the record as a whole, clear error does not exist. (quotation omitted)).