Court Opinion

ID: 9389803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:01:17.694072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.615236
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2283
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                               Daniel Rogers Kihn

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: April 10, 2023
                              Filed: April 26, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Daniel Kihn pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, see
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, see 18
U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), (h). With a total offense level of 43 and a criminal-history
category of VI, Kihn’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was life imprisonment.
Citing his numerous cardiac and respiratory issues, Kihn urged the district court1 to
depart downward under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4, which permits a downward departure
based on a defendant’s “extraordinary physical impairment.” The district court
denied Kihn’s request but nonetheless varied downward and sentenced him to 300
months’ imprisonment. Noting the seriousness of Kihn’s offenses, the court
clarified that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had granted Kihn’s
request for a downward departure. Kihn appeals, arguing that the district court erred
in denying his request.

       Kihn contends that we may review the district court’s decision not to depart
downward under § 5H1.4. But see United States v. McCoy, 847 F.3d 601, 607 (8th
Cir. 2017) (explaining that we “generally will not review the district court’s refusal
to grant a downward departure unless the district court had an unconstitutional
motive or erroneously thought that it was without authority to grant the departure”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Even assuming that we may review the
decision, any error would be harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). “Incorrect
application of the Guidelines is harmless error where the district court specifies the
resolution of a particular issue did not affect the ultimate determination of a
sentence.” United States v. Marin, 31 F.4th 1049, 1056 (8th Cir. 2022). That
happened here: though the district court denied Kihn’s request for a downward
departure, the court varied downward from life imprisonment to 300 months and
stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had granted Kihn’s
request for a downward departure.

      Accordingly, we affirm Kihn’s sentence.
                     ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Julie A. Robinson, United States District Judge for the
District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

                                         -2-