Court Opinion

ID: 9483851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:33:01.097038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:52.048212
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with most of the majority opinion’s analysis. However, for the reasons discussed below, I would reverse the sentence and remand the case to the district court for a statement of its reasons for denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and for resentencing.
First, even though the district court recognized that Guidelines § 5K2.3 did not apply to the present case, I think the district court granted the upward departure primarily because it viewed P as a “vulnerable victim” who had suffered extreme psychological injury as a result of her relationship with appellant. The district court repeatedly referred to P as a victim who had been sexually abused, exploited and corrupted by appellant, and this inaccurate characterization of P as a victim clearly influenced the district court’s sentencing findings. However, as noted by the district court and by the majority opinion, P was not a “victim” of the offense; the victims of the offense were the disappointed customers.
Even assuming for purposes of analysis that extreme psychological injury to P as a result of the relationship between appellant and P is an aggravating circumstance and therefore relevant under Guidelines § 5K2.0, the district court improperly assumed that the relationship could only have been extremely psychologically damaging to P. This may in fact be correct, but there is no evidence in the record to support this finding. Cf. United States v. Fawbush, 946 F.2d 584, 586 (8th Cir.1991) (requiring evidence of extreme psychological injury under Guidelines § 5K2.3). In addition, I am not willing to speculate that this relationship had an “obvious” and damaging effect on P, particularly in the absence of expert psychological evidence.
However, I agree that the record supports the district court’s finding that appellant “corrupted” P by involving her in the fraudulent schemes. Appellant’s apparent willingness to enlist and use P to carry out the fraudulent schemes is an aggravating circumstance that was not adequately considered in formulating the Guidelines. Cf. United States v. Christopher, 923 F.2d 1545, 1556 (11th Cir.1991) (father’s willingness to involve members of his family, including his children, in criminal activities was aggravating circumstance).
The district court also departed upward on the basis of the “pervasive nature” of the crime. Appellant correctly argues that factors such as his leadership role in the offense, the total amount of the monetary loss, and the fact that the offense involved more than minimal planning and more than one victim were already taken into consideration under the Guidelines as enhancements to the offense level and thus cannot be used to justify an upward departure. However, the district court also found that appellant and P had conducted the same type of fraudulent scheme in four or possibly five states. I agree with the majority opinion that this finding, which is supported by the record, justifies upward departure. The repeated commission of the same type of offense is an aggravating circumstance that was not adequately considered in formulating the Guidelines. See, e.g., United States v. Saunders, 957 F.2d 1488, 1492 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 256, 121 L.Ed.2d 187 (1992).
Even though the district court based the upward departure in large part on an invalid reason, the psychological injury to P, I believe the error was harmless. Williams v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (harmless error analysis under Sentencing Guidelines). I think the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the invalid factor on the basis of appellant’s involving P in criminal activity and the repeated commission of the same type of fraudulent scheme. Each of those factors is substantial in itself. I am also satisfied that the departure of 12 months was reasonable because those factors are sufficient to justify a departure of that magnitude. But for the district court’s failure to explain the denial of the *940reduction for acceptance of responsibility, I would affirm the sentence.
I recognize that a guilty plea alone does not necessarily warrant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under Guidelines § 3E1.1 and that granting both an enhancement for obstruction of justice under Guidelines § 3C1.1 and a reduction for acceptance of responsibility would be “extraordinary.” Guidelines § 3C1.1, application note 4. In the present case the presen-tence report recommended both an enhancement for obstruction of justice and a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Appellant pled guilty in a timely manner and, after some initial missteps, fully cooperated with the authorities. He did attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, but he later withdrew that ill-advised motion. It may be that, as noted by the majority opinion, the district court decided that appellant’s abortive attempt to withdraw his guilty plea indicated that he had not genuinely accepted personal responsibility. Nonetheless, I think the district court should state the reason or reasons why it denied the reduction for acceptance of responsibility. It is, after all, not at all uncommon for criminal defendants to react just as appellant did when informed of the possibility of a greater sentence.
For that reason, I would reverse the sentence and remand the case to the district court for a statement of reasons and for resentencing.