Court Opinion

ID: 9377329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 17:00:46.644236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.487661
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-5023     Document: 010110822476       Date Filed: 03/07/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 7, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                           No. 22-5023
                                                    (D.C. No. 4:21-CR-00120-CVE-1)
  JACOB PATRICK KRAFFT,                                        (N.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       After his conviction of murder in the second degree, Jacob Patrick Krafft

 appeals the district court’s sentence as substantively unreasonable. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we affirm.

       Mr. Krafft is a member of the Cherokee tribe. In 2018, an Oklahoma jury

 found him guilty of murder in the second degree for killing his father, and the state

 court sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. In 2021, following the United States

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-5023     Document: 010110822476          Date Filed: 03/07/2023    Page: 2

 Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the state

 court dismissed the murder charge and vacated the conviction for lack of

 subject-matter jurisdiction. In 2021, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Krafft for

 second-degree murder in Indian Country, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1151, 1153.

 Mr. Krafft pleaded guilty to the federal charge.

        The probation department prepared a presentence report resulting in a Federal

 Sentencing Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Krafft filed a

 motion requesting a downward variance for a sentencing range of 70 to 97 months’

 imprisonment. The government asked for a sentence at the top of the Guidelines

 range of 262. The court denied Mr. Krafft’s motion and sentenced him to 210

 months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the Guidelines range. This appeal followed.

        Mr. Krafft argues the sentence the district court imposed is substantively

 unreasonable. “We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of

 discretion.” United States v. Kaspereit, 994 F.3d 1202, 1207 (10th Cir. 2021).

 Under this standard of review, “we will give substantial deference to the district

 court’s determination and overturn a sentence as substantively unreasonable only if it

 is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unjust.” Id. In making this

 assessment, “[w]e must determine whether the length of the sentence is reasonable

 given all the circumstances of the case in light of the . . . factors” listed in

 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 1214.

        Mr. Krafft argues his sentence is greater than necessary to effectuate the

 sentencing goals under § 3553(a) because the offense was largely, if not exclusively,

                                              2
Appellate Case: 22-5023     Document: 010110822476        Date Filed: 03/07/2023     Page: 3

 the result of untreated mental illness and threats by his father. He argues his

 untreated mental illness distinguishes his case from those of otherwise similarly

 situated defendants, justifying a downward variance. Relatedly, he argues he has

 demonstrated a capacity for reform that is greater than that of the typical defendant

 by keeping a clean prison disciplinary record.

       The district court, though, considered these arguments and weighed them

 against the government’s arguments for an even longer sentence than Mr. Krafft

 received. Those arguments included Mr. Krafft’s “history of murderous threats

 against others, prior violent acts against the victim, and his apparent lack of remorse

 for his actions related to the instant offense.” R. vol. 2 at 37. The district court also

 considered Mr. Krafft’s pre-sentence statement and impact statements from the

 victim’s family members. We cannot say the sentence it arrived at was arbitrary,

 capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unjust. So, the district court did not abuse its

 discretion.

       We affirm the judgment of the district court.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Gregory A. Phillips
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             3