Court Opinion

ID: 9496296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:22:40.062173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:28.802317
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s sentencing reductions. The majority’s treatment of this case reflects a disturbing trend toward increasingly punitive sentencing. Moreover, it disregards the district court’s discretion to fashion a sentence that, after having the opportunity to hear all the evidence and evaluate the defendant through her words and actions, would better serve both the defendant and society.
A simple survey of recent appeals from criminal sentences bears out this trend. Since May of 2000, the government appealed twenty-five cases in which the district *943court reduced the defendant’s sentence. Of those, our court reversed the district court twenty-three 'times, and affirmed only twice. Compare United States v. Madrigal, 327 F.3d 738 (8th Cir.2003) (affirming district court’s sentence reduction), and United States v. Jauregui, 314 F.3d 961 (8th Cir.2003) (same), with United States v. Swick, 334 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2003) (reversing district court’s sentence reduction), United States v. Dyck, 334 F.3d 736 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Aguilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2003) (same), United States v. Johnson, 318 F.3d 821 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Patterson, 315 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Roberts, 313 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Butler, 296 F.3d 721 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Webber, 39 Fed.Appx. 469 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Stone, 39 Fed.Appx. 478 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Searcy, 284 F.3d 938 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Reinke, 283 F.3d 918 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Jimenez, 282 F.3d 597 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. King, 280 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Petersen, 276 F.3d 432 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Sheridan, 270 F.3d 669 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Lopez-Salas, 266 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Buckendahl, 251 F.3d 753 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Hasan, 245 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2001)(same), United States v. Patterson, 17 Fed.Appx. 496 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Smith, 240 F.3d 732 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Langmade, 236 F.3d 931 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Heilmann, 235 F.3d 1146 (8th Cir.2001) (same), and United States v. Aldaz-Loya, No. 99-4339, 2000 WL 688228 (8th Cir. May 30, 2000) (same).
When it comes to cases in which the district court increased the defendant’s sentence, one would expect to see a similar pattern of reversals, inasmuch as we have employed similar standards of review for both upward and downward adjustments and departures. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Since May of 2000, we were presented with appeals from forty-six upward departures. Of those, we reversed only two, and affirmed the other forty-four. Compare United States v. Robertson, 324 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir.2003) (reversing increase in sentence), and United States v. Bougie, 279 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2002) (same), with United States v. Chesborough, 333 F.3d 872 (8th Cir.2003) (affirming increase in sentence), United States v. Agee, 333 F.3d 864 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Orchard, 332 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Tarantola, 332 F.3d 498 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Aguilar-Lopez, 329 F.3d 960 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Thornerg, 326 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Fletcher, 322 F.3d 508 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Thin Elk, 321 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2003) (same), United States v. Vagenas, 318 F.3d 819 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Lalley, 317 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2003) (same), United States v. Rose, 315 F.3d 956 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Villalobos-Cuellar, 53 FedAppx. 800 (8th Cir.2003) (same), United States v. Evans, 314 F.3d 329 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Johnson, 53 Fed.Appx. 394 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Iron Cloud, 312 F.3d 379 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Leaf, 306 F.3d 529 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Bell, 46 Fed.Appx. 390 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Scolaro, 299 F.3d 956 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Garcia-Zuniga, 37 Fed-Appx. 848 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Wilson, 36 Fed.Appx. 577 *944(8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Bussey, 33 FedAppx. 834 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Brown, 287 F.3d 684 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Fellers, 285 F.3d 721 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Evans, 285 F.3d 664 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Garduno-Bustos, 37 Fed.Appx. 830 (8th Cir. 2002) (same), United States v. Callaway, 32 FedAppx. 771 (8th Cir.2002) (same), United States v. Plummer, 22 FedAppx. 676 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Hampton, 260 F.3d 832 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Sarff, 13 FedAppx. 467, (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Lashley, 251 F.3d 706 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Red Cloud, 8 FedAppx. 579 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Kingston, 249 F.3d 740 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Big Crow, 11 FedAppx. 641 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Loud Hawk, 245 F.3d 667 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Starnes, 2 Fed. Appx. 639 (8th Cir.2001) (same), United States v. Lewis, 235 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2000) (same), United States v. Wyatt, Nos. 99-3989, 99-3990, 99-3991, 99-3992, & 99-3993, 2000 WL 1474099 (8th Cir. Oct.5, 2000) (same), United States v. Levi 229 F.3d 677 (8th Cir.2000) (same), United States v. Handley, No. 99-4118, 2000 WL 960942 (8th Cir. July 12, 2000) (same), United States v. Hernandez-Ramos, No. 99-3413, 2000 WL 960945 (8th Cir. July 12, 2000) (same), United States v. Garcia, No. 99-3650, 2000 WL 862576, (8th Cir. June 29, 2000) (same), and United States v. Sample, 213 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir.2000) (same).
In other words, during the same three year period that our court was consistently reversing shorter sentences, we were consistently affirming longer ones. It is difficult for me to reconcile this contrast, and I am deeply concerned with the trend and the message it sends to district eourts-that more severe sentences are far more likely to withstand appellate review. As to Yir-kovsky’s case, I believe the district court did not err in granting her sentencing reductions, and would affirm the sentence imposed.
I. ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY ADJUSTMENT
Despite the strictures of guideline sentencing, district courts still retain the authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence where the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility. USSG § 3E1.1. Because the district court is in the best position to assess whether a defendant has, as a matter of fact, accepted responsibility, “[w]e review a sentencing court’s decision to award or deny an aecep-tance-of-responsibility reduction for clear error.” United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir.2000); see also USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n.5) (“The sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review.”).
The government, citing Ervasti concedes that our court reviews a sentencing court’s decision with regard to acceptance of responsibility for clear error. (Gov’t Br. at 19.) Nonetheless, the majority substitutes its own de novo standard of review, attempting to shape the issue as one that is entirely legal. I simply cannot see how the resolution of whether a defendant is eligible for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a purely legal question. Cf. United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.2000) (“Although we review the district court’s interpretation and construction of the sentencing guidelines de novo, ‘[wjhether a defendant qualifies for a minor participant reduction is a *945question of fact, the determination of which we review for clear error.’ ” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). Thus, I undertake my analysis under the clearly erroneous standard.
I agree that acceptance of responsibility reductions do not often apply to defendants who go to trial:
This adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse. Conviction by trial, however, does not automatically preclude a defendant from consideration for such a reduction. In rare situations a defendant may clearly demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for his criminal conduct even though he exercises his constitutional right to a trial. This may occur, for example, where a defendant goes to trial to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to factual guilt (e.g., to make a constitutional challenge to a statute or a challenge to the applicability of a statute to his conduct).
USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n.2). The majority, citing our unpublished opinion in United States v. Webber, 39 Fed.Appx. 469 (8th Cir.2002), holds that Yirkovsky’s denial of actual or constructive possession of the guns was a factual challenge, making her ineligible for this departure. I find this broad definition of what constitutes a “factual challenge” unworkable, for it conflicts with the clear intent of the sentencing guideline commission to reserve the departure for those who go to trial in order to challenge whether their conduct is criminally prohibited. In this regard, Yir-kovsky’s case is archetypal: at no time throughout these proceedings did she try to obstruct the government, and in many ways she was of assistance. After getting the search warrant in this case, members of the police department sought out Yir-kovsky, who was not home at the time, for assistance in executing the warrant. She agreed to help, and accompanied the police back to the house. She allowed the police to search her purse, opened the home, and restrained Ricky Black’s two pit bulls, Steel and Anthrax, while officers searched the home. She candidly admitted to possessing and using marijuana, and she told the officers where in the house Black’s weapons were located. At trial, she put on no witnesses, and did not challenge any material factual assertions of the government’s witnesses.
Yirkovsky did not contest the government’s factual allegations. Indeed, she admitted that the guns were in the house, that she lived there, and that she was a drug user. Yirkovsky simply argued that the facts alleged (and admitted) did not constitute the crimes charged. This is not a factual challenge; it is a legal challenge to the applicability of a criminal statute to one’s conduct. To the extent that Webber-an unpublished case the majority admits has no precedential value 3-suggests an inconsistent result, it is at odds with relevant guideline commentary and published decisions of other circuits, and thus should not be followed. See, e.g., USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n.2) (expressly permitting use *946of acceptance of responsibility departure in cases where defendant goes to trial to “challenge to the applicability of a statute to [her] conduct”); United States v. Broussard, 987 F.2d 215, 224 (5th Cir.1993) (“We agree with Broussard that as to the § 924(c)(1) offense, he accepted responsibility. He admitted ownership of the guns found in his home and their location. He went to trial to contend that § 924(c)(1) did not apply to these uneontested facts. This issue does not relate to factual guilt as that phrase is used in Application Note 2.”) overruled on other grounds by J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994).
Moreover, I am not convinced that even a factual challenge would disqualify a defendant from this departure. The relevant commentary makes clear that the guideline reduction remains available for the district court’s consideration, even if the defendant exercises his or her constitutional right to trial. USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2); accord United States v. Montano-Gudino, 309 F.3d 501, 506-07 (8th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that in rare cases defendant who denies essential elements of crime could be awarded acceptance of responsibility departure based on pretrial statements and conduct). Whether or not the defendant should actually receive the departure is another matter, one which is left to the district court’s sound discretion. Because the district court did not clearly err in this case, that discretion should be left undisturbed.
II. MITIGATING ROLE ADJUSTMENT
The majority’s determination that Yir-kovsky was not a minimal participant is exemplary of what I believe is a pattern of our court overstepping its limited appellate role in sentencing. We are obligated to review the district court’s finding as to whether a defendant qualifies for a mitigating role reduction for clear error. United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.2000). While the majority purports to agree that this is our standard of review, an examination of its analysis reveals that what it is really doing is undertaking a de novo review, substituting its own judgment for that of the district court.
After reading the majority’s discussion, one is left with the impression that United States v. Ali 63 F.3d 710 (8th Cir.1995), is so indistinguishable as to bar Yirkovsky from eligibility for the mitigating role reduction. The defendant in Ali claimed, as Yirkovsky does, he was less culpable than the average defendant in a gun case because of the circumstances of the crime. Id. at 719. And it is true, of course, that both Yirkovsky and the defendant in Ali moved for mitigating role reductions. Id. at 713. However, in Ali the district court did not grant the sentence reduction, and the question before us was whether that choice was clearly erroneous. Id. at 718-19. In affirming the district court, we did not limit those instances in which the mitigating role reduction is available; rather, we simply recognized that the decision to grant or deny the reduction was within the purview of the district court, and our limited role was to review that decision for clear error. Id. at 719. The majority attempts to morph Ali’s holding that the district court did not clearly err in denying a sentence reduction under Ali’s facts into a Circuit mandate that a reduction is not available under factual circumstances similar to those in Ali. Perhaps if we reviewed both Ali and Yirkovsky’s case under a de novo standard this would withstand scrutiny. As it stands, however, it fails to account for the vast middle ground in which a district court is within its discretion to either grant or deny a sentence reduction.
*947To my mind, Yirkovsky falls squarely within this middle ground. A sentencing court may reduce a defendant’s offense level four levels where it finds the defendant to be a minimal participant in the crime. USSG § 3B1.2. This reduction “is intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group.” Id., comment, (n.4). In this ease, the district court considered Yirkovsky’s conduct in contrast to that of co-defendant Ricky Black. By all accounts, Black lived at the house until shortly before the search, acquired the guns, brought them to the house, and demonstrated to others how the guns worked. On the other hand, Yirkov-sky never claimed to have control over the guns, never touched the guns, and did not like them being in the house. Moreover, according to one witness, Black was physically abusive to Yirkovsky and likely would have beaten Yirkovsky if she had touched the guns. Yirkovsky’s offense was predicated on the fact that she allowed the guns to remain in her residence. Based on this evidence, I simply cannot agree that the district court erred in finding Yirkovsky to be a minimal participant in the offenses.
CONCLUSION
Being of the view that we are to respect the district court’s superior position in the sentencing process and for the reasons stated herein, I would affirm the district court.

. 8th Cir. R. 28A(i) (stating unpublished opinions have no precedential value). While I have my doubts as to whether a rule such as 28A(i) can withstand constitutional muster, see Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 905 (8th Cir.2000) (Heaney, J., concurring) (agreeing with Judge Richard Arnold that Circuit rule limiting precedential value of unpublished opinions was unconstitutional), I recognize that Rule 28A(i) remains binding in this circuit, Anastasoff v. United States, 235 F.3d 1054, 1056 (8th Cir.2000) (en banc) ("The constitutionality of that portion of Rule 28A(i) which says that unpublished opinions have no precedential effect remains an open question in this Circuit.”)