Opinion ID: 196657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sentencing of Boots

Text: 48 Boots challenges his sentence, which, like Cook's and Lazore's, was at the low end of the applicable guideline sentencing range: 18 months imprisonment, to be followed by two years of supervised release. 19 Mandatory special assessments were imposed. Boots raises four sentencing issues.
49 Boots contends first that the district court erred in refusing to grant a downward departure. He acknowledges the general rule that jurisdiction does not lie for appeals from a district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward. See United States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1290 (1st Cir.1992). However, he seeks to fit within the exception for a refusal to depart based upon a court's misapprehension of the rules governing departures. United States v. Gifford, 17 F.3d 462, 473 (1st Cir.1994). 50 The exception is a narrow one, and is not met here. A review of the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court judge was well aware of the applicable case law, believed he had authority to depart downward, and declined to do so after carefully weighing the arguments presented. His discretionary judgment that the case did not involve such unusual circumstances to justify taking it outside the Guidelines' 'heartland,'  United States v. Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 949 (1st Cir.1993), was not skewed by legal errors such as Gifford describes. It is therefore unreviewable.
51 Boots claims that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility for his offenses pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). He says that at trial he did not contest the factual basis for the charges, but challenged only the jurisdictional bases, and should not be punished for exercising his constitutional right to a trial. 52 We review for clear error the district court's decision that Boots did not clearly demonstrate[ ] acceptance of responsibility for his offense. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); see also United States v. Lombard, 72 F.3d 170, 187 (1st Cir.1995). The district court declined to grant a reduction in part because it believed that if defendant had been solely concerned with jurisdictional issues relating to his Native American status, he could have entered a conditional guilty plea and preserved the issue for appeal rather than going to trial. The court also considered the fact that defendants defended against the bribery aspect of the case, insisting that the payments they offered Moore were not bribery but rather were salary for a business partner. 53 A district court's determination of whether such a reduction is warranted deserves great deference. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 comment. (n. 5). We see no abuse of discretion here. Cf. United States v. Crass, 50 F.3d 81, 84 (1st Cir.1995) (intent, like any other essential element of the crime charged, may not be contested by the defendant without jeopardizing a downward adjustment for 'acceptance of responsibility' ); United States v. Springs, 17 F.3d 192, 196 (7th Cir.) (noting that defendant who entered conditional guilty plea was able to retain the right to challenge the voluntariness of his confessions, and he still received the maximum possible acceptance-of-responsibility reduction), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 375, 130 L.Ed.2d 326 (1994).
54 Boots challenges the two-level increase imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2) for offenses involving more than minimal planning. The Guidelines state that this increase applies where repeated acts are carried out over a period of time provided they were not purely opportune, as well as where steps are taken to conceal the offense. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.1 comment. (n. 1(f)), 2F1.1(b)(2) comment. (n. 2). The sentencing transcript reflects that the district court judge imposed this increase after considering the evidence of multiple acts taken by defendants over a several month period. Among the acts specifically noted was the bribery of Police Chief Moore, a concealed activity in which defendants directly participated in the spring of 1992. While the district court may reconsider this issue upon remand for resentencing in light of our reversal of the wire fraud and conspiracy convictions, it was not clear error to impose the increase.
55 Boots claims that insufficient evidence supported the district court's calculation of the amount of loss (between $120,000 and $200,000), which resulted in a seven-level increase to defendants' sentences. The range was determined based on testimony at trial and sentencing as to the quantity of tobacco transported into Canada and the corresponding duties and taxes owed. Our reversal of the wire fraud count involving tobacco smuggling, and our vacating of the conspiracy count, require a remand for resentencing, at which time the district court may reconsider the entire question of loss calculations, including the instant issue. We see no need to deal further with this matter now. 56 We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit. The convictions for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (wire fraud intended to deprive residents of honest services of their police chief) and 1952 (Travel Act) are affirmed. The violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud relative to Canadian duties and taxes) are reversed. The violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) is vacated and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. We also vacate the sentences of all defendants and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. 57 So ordered.