Court Opinion

ID: 9387400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 20:00:35.882158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:13.360144
License: Public Domain

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                               Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
                                      File Name: 23a0074p.06

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

                                                            ┐
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                            │
                                   Plaintiff-Appellee,      │
                                                             >        No. 22-5099
                                                            │
        v.                                                  │
                                                            │
 NIGEL MEDLIN,                                              │
                                Defendant-Appellant.        │
                                                            ┘

  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London.
                  No. 6:18-cr-00064-3—Claria Horn Boom, District Judge.

                                    Argued: March 9, 2023

                              Decided and Filed: April 17, 2023

             Before: SUHRHEINRICH, COLE, AND MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
                               _________________

                                           COUNSEL

ARGUED: Justin A. Miller, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Birmingham,
Alabama, for Appellant. John Patrick Grant, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Justin A. Miller, BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. John Patrick Grant, Charles
P. Wisdom, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for
Appellee.
                                     _________________

                                            OPINION
                                     _________________

       COLE, Circuit Judge.     Nigel Medlin pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). The district court imposed a sentence of 220 months’
imprisonment. Medlin appeals the sentence, arguing it is procedurally unreasonable for two
 No. 22-5099                                 United States v. Medlin                                       Page 2

reasons. First, he argues that the court improperly applied a four-level enhancement to his
offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A), which applies “[i]f the victim sustained
permanent or life-threatening bodily injury[.]” Second, he claims that there is an unreasonable
disparity between his sentence and the sentences of his co-defendants. Because the district court
properly applied the sentencing guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, we affirm.

                                              I. BACKGROUND

         On December 20, 2018, Medlin and co-conspirators were indicted for one count of
kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and one count of brandishing, using, and
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

         Medlin signed a written plea agreement pleading guilty to count one of the indictment.
The facts alleged in the plea agreement, which Medlin admits to and which we accept as true for
purposes of this appeal,1 are as follows. On or about April 2, 2017, based on a dispute over a
stolen vehicle, Medlin and three co-conspirators kidnapped T.F., also known as Victim 1, and
two additional victims. The kidnappers transported the three victims to a fourth co-conspirator’s
house. Once at the house, Medlin and the co-conspirators began “physically assaulting” T.F.
(Plea Agreement, R. 89, PageID 243.) Medlin took part in some of these assaults.

         Throughout the course of the assault, T.F. suffered multiple distinct injuries: one of the
co-conspirators broke T.F.’s jaw; they collectively hung a metal logging chain around T.F.’s
neck that was heavy enough to weigh his head down; they collectively heated a piece of metal
with a blowtorch and used the metal to burn and scar T.F.’s shoulder; a co-conspirator pulled
several of T.F.’s teeth and broke one of T.F.’s teeth off at the root; and they collectively forced
T.F. to ingest methamphetamine. Eventually, the kidnappers collectively threatened the victims
with death if they reported the assault to the police, and then drove the victims to a different area,
where they let the victims leave the car.

         1
           Medlin does not dispute the facts of T.F.’s injuries as set forth in the plea agreement or the presentence
investigation report, so we deem these facts admitted. See United States v. Stafford, 258 F.3d 465, 475–76 (6th Cir.
2001).
 No. 22-5099                           United States v. Medlin                             Page 3

       Furthermore, a co-conspirator brandished a firearm “in a threatening manner towards the
[v]ictims” on multiple occasions. (Id.) And “[b]y and through his involvement and assistance in
the kidnapping, [Medlin] aided and abetted [an unindicted co-conspirator] in the use, carrying,
and brandishing of a firearm during and in relation to the kidnapping offense.” (Id.) The
presentence investigation report (“PSR”) prepared by the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services
Office included additional facts, including that Medlin himself used a firearm to “pistol-whip”
T.F., and that he also used the blowtorch to burn T.F.’s arm and shoulder.

       In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(3),
Medlin’s guidelines’ calculation would increase by two levels because a dangerous weapon was
used during the kidnapping. The government also provisionally agreed to a three-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility and timely notice of Medlin’s intent to plead guilty. The
agreement did not stipulate a sentencing range to be imposed by the court, nor did it stipulate a
criminal history category. While the agreement waived most of Medlin’s rights to appeal, he
explicitly retained the right to appeal his sentence.

       The PSR, meanwhile, calculated Medlin’s offense level as 35. The base offense level for
kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) is 32. U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1. Per the plea
agreement, a two-level enhancement applied because dangerous weapons were used in the
course of the kidnapping—specifically, the blowtorch, pliers, and firearms.               See id.
§ 2A4.1(b)(3).

       The PSR also calculated an additional four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2A4.1(b)(2)(A), which applies “[i]f the victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily
injury[.]” The PSR states that “T.F.[] sustained permanent injury through the loss of teeth that
were extracted, permanent scarring on his face from the beating suffered, and permanent scarring
on his arm/shoulder from being burned with a blow torch. [T.F.’s] injuries were received from
strikes in the form of punches, kicks, and by strikes from firearms.” (Presentence Report, R.
182, PageID 656.) Relatedly, T.F.’s medical records from April 10, 2017, indicate that he
sustained abrasions on his right shoulder, left forearm, forehead, nose, and cheek; bruising across
his neck and down to his sternum; a laceration on his scalp; and scabbed skin on his head. The
plea agreement, however, did not raise the possibility of this four-level enhancement.
 No. 22-5099                          United States v. Medlin                             Page 4

       Lastly, the PSR applied a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and
timely notification of a guilty plea. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)–(b). Medlin’s criminal history
score was six, which establishes a criminal history category of III.

       The district court sentenced Medlin on February 18, 2020. Medlin objected to the four-
level enhancement recommended in the PSR under U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A), and the district
court responded to the objection.      Reiterating the language of the section, as well as the
definition contained in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, the district court found that the
enhancement applied to Medlin’s case.

       The district court adopted the PSR in full, finding that the appropriate offense level was
35, and that Medlin’s criminal history score of six placed him in criminal history category III.
The guidelines range was thus 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment for a crime that carries a
maximum sentence of life. Taking into account Medlin’s history of drug abuse, his parents’
incarceration during his childhood, his two children, his criminal history, the serious nature and
circumstances of the offense, the respective roles of the co-conspirators, and balancing the
factors in § 3553(a), the court sentenced Medlin near the lower end of the guidelines range—220
months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.

       Medlin filed a notice of appeal challenging his sentence. We dismissed the appeal as
untimely. After Medlin filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255, the district court vacated the February 2020 judgment against Medlin and entered
an amended judgment solely for purposes of restarting Medlin’s appeal time, thereby allowing
him to pursue his direct appeal. The district court also agreed to hold in abeyance the remaining
two claims in the motion to vacate pending resolution of the direct appeal.

       The district court filed an amended judgment on February 7, 2022. Medlin then timely
appealed his sentence, bringing us to this decision.

                                         II. ANALYSIS

       “A review for reasonableness has both procedural and substantive components.” United
States v. Young, 847 F.3d 328, 370 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
 No. 22-5099                          United States v. Medlin                              Page 5

(2007)). “The first requirement of a legitimate criminal sentence is a process-driven one.”
United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2018). Procedural errors include “failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation
from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We review the district court’s sentencing
decision for procedural reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. And
“[a] sentence is substantively reasonable if it is proportionate to the seriousness of the
circumstances of the offense and offender, and sufficient but not greater than necessary, to
comply with the purposes of § 3553(a).” United States v. Solano-Rosales, 781 F.3d 345, 356
(6th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

A. Section 2A4.1(b)(2)(A) Enhancement

       Medlin first argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because of an improper
enhancement. We review the district court’s factual findings under clear error review and its
legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2007). Included
in this de novo review is a district court’s “interpretation and application” of the sentencing
guidelines. United States v. Cobb, 250 F.3d 346, 348 (6th Cir. 2001). The analysis of whether
the enhancement applies is a highly fact-specific one. United States v. Baggett, 342 F.3d 536,
540 (6th Cir. 2003).

       1. Background

       The provision Medlin contests, U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2), provides for three potential
enhancements:

       (A) If the victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury, increase
       by 4 levels; (B) if the victim sustained serious bodily injury, increase by 2 levels;
       or (C) if the degree of injury is between that specified in subdivisions (A) and (B),
       increase by 3 levels.

U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A)–(C) (emphasis added).
 No. 22-5099                          United States v. Medlin                              Page 6

       As the guideline does not include definitions for the degrees of injuries, the commentary
instructs courts to turn to the definitions found in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1. Id.
§ 2A4.1 cmt. 1. As to “permanent or life-threatening bodily injury,” the commentary explains:

       “Permanent or life-threatening bodily injury” means injury involving a substantial
       risk of death; loss or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member,
       organ, or mental faculty that is likely to be permanent; or an obvious
       disfigurement that is likely to be permanent. In the case of a kidnapping, for
       example, maltreatment to a life-threatening degree (e.g., by denial of food or
       medical care) would constitute life-threatening bodily injury.

Id. § 1B1.1 cmt. 1(K). “‘Serious bodily injury’ means injury involving extreme physical pain or
the protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or
requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation.” Id.
§ 1B1.1 cmt. 1(M).

       The district court applied the four-level enhancement for permanent or life-threatening
injuries to Medlin for multiple reasons. First, the court found that T.F.’s injuries involved a
substantial risk of death. After explaining the numerous ways in which T.F. was assaulted, the
judge said: “[B]y forcing him to ingest the meth, I think that alone involved a substantial risk of
death. Pistol-whipping him. Removing—extracting his teeth. Round-house kicking him so that
he fell out of the chair. All of those things I believe involved a substantial risk of death.” (Tr.,
R. 192, PageID 599.) Second, the district court held that the injuries also qualified for the
enhancement because of T.F.’s “emotional and mental anguish that . . . is likely to be
permanent,” the scar on his cheek, burn marks on his arm and shoulder, and the pulled teeth, all
of which are injuries that fit under the impairment of a function prong. (Id.) Third, the district
court found that the scarring, as well as the pulled teeth, could qualify as “an obvious
disfigurement that is likely to be permanent.” (Id. at PageID 600.)

       Medlin argues that T.F.’s injuries did not rise to the level of a “permanent or life-
threatening bodily injury,” because the injuries T.F. sustained do not fit the definitions set forth
in the commentary, and therefore instead warrant application of either a two- or three-level
enhancement. He also asserts that the commentary definitions unlawfully expand upon the
guidelines provision, and so the commentary definitions cannot be used to enhance his sentence.
 No. 22-5099                          United States v. Medlin                              Page 7

He therefore challenges both “the district court’s view of the evidence” as well as “the purely
legal question whether the commentary comports with the guidelines.” (Reply Br. 1 (cleaned
up).)

        2. Interpreting the Guidelines

        “[G]uidelines commentary may only interpret, not add to, the guidelines themselves.”
United States v. Riccardi, 989 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v. Havis, 927
F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (per curiam)). To that end, we have held that the district
court must first analyze the language of the guidelines, and only if they are “genuinely
ambiguous” should it turn to the commentary. Id. at 485 (quoting Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct.
2400, 2414 (2019)). The commentary definitions only stand to the extent that they fall “within
the zone of [any] ambiguity” in the guidelines. See id. at 485–86 (citations omitted) (brackets in
original). When interpreting the guidelines themselves, we “begin[] with the plain meaning.”
United States v. Sands, 948 F.3d 709, 713 (6th Cir. 2020); see also A. Scalia & B. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 78 (2012). If the language is unambiguous, the
inquiry ends there. But if it is ambiguous, or “the text alone does not admit a single conclusive
answer,” we may utilize other interpretive tools, including dictionaries. Sands, 948 F.3d at 713
(citation omitted).

        Here, the guidelines enhancement at issue is not ambiguous. The enhancement allows for
a four-level enhancement for any “permanent or life-threatening injury.”                  U.S.S.G.
§ 2A4.1(b)(2). This phrase is disjunctive and includes two possible types of injuries that lead to
the enhancement: either a permanent injury or a life-threatening injury. See Encino Motorcars,
LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1141 (2018) (discussing that the ordinary meaning of “or” is
“almost always disjunctive” (quoting United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31, 45 (2013))); see also
United States v. Helton, 32 F. App’x 707, 716 (6th Cir. 2002) (“And the definition is clearly in
the disjunctive[.]”).

        Therefore, an injury must only be permanent, forever changed without the ability to
return to what it once was, or so serious as to actually threaten the victim’s life, in order to fit
 No. 22-5099                          United States v. Medlin                              Page 8

within the four-level enhancement—not necessarily both.           At a minimum, T.F. sustained
permanent injury via both his pulled teeth and the scarring on his cheek and shoulder.

       In the alternative, even assuming the guidelines provision were ambiguous, the
interpretation in the commentary that is relevant to Medlin’s case would likely fall “within the
zone of [any] ambiguity” that exists. Riccardi, 989 F.3d at 486 (citations omitted) (brackets in
original). The commentary provides that a “permanent or life-threatening injury” includes an
“injury involving a substantial risk of death,” or the “loss or substantial impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty that is likely to be permanent,” as well as
“an obvious disfigurement that is likely to be permanent.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. 1(K); see
United States v. Miner, 345 F.3d 1004, 1006–07 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that the victim’s
“permanent scar from removal of a bullet from his neck” along with “the presence of a bullet
inside his body” supports the permanent injury enhancement). Once again, just as under the
plain meaning of the guidelines provision itself, the pulled teeth and scarring T.F. sustained are
permanent bodily injuries, given that these injuries impact the function of a body part and are
both obvious, permanent disfigurements. So the district court did not abuse its discretion in
applying the enhancement.

       Medlin maintains that neither the scarring nor the pulled teeth are permanent injuries,
because an injury is not permanent so long as it can heal either naturally or with assistance (i.e.,
surgery). But Medlin does not cite any of our caselaw to support this proposition. To the
contrary, the Seventh Circuit, in defining this enhancement, held that “[i]f an impairment has not
been corrected by the time of sentencing, and will last for life unless surgically corrected in the
future, then it should be treated as ‘permanent.’” United States v. Webster, 500 F.3d 606, 608
(7th Cir. 2007). We agree: A permanent injury is one that cannot in time heal and return to
itself. Take an example that is analogous to pulled teeth, but at a higher degree of severity: an
amputated arm. An individual who loses an arm may be able to obtain full functioning of their
arm with increasingly advanced prosthetics. But the arm will never return to its original form.
The same is true for T.F. as well. He may undergo surgery and have teeth implanted, but the
pulled teeth will never heal to what they were before the injury. That is a permanent injury.
 No. 22-5099                            United States v. Medlin                                   Page 9

        Medlin also quibbles with the district court’s reliance on T.F.’s permanent emotional and
mental anguish, arguing that the enhancement applies only to physical, not mental, bodily
injuries. We do not need to decide this issue given that Medlin’s other injuries qualify. But we
would note that other circuit courts to rule on it have found that certain injuries to a victim’s
mental faculty, such as “severe PTSD and its psychological manifestations,” may constitute an
“impairment of the function of a . . . mental faculty.” United States v. Spinelli, 352 F.3d 48, 59
(2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Lowe, 145 F.3d 45, 53 (1st Cir. 1998); United States v. James,
957 F.2d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1992); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt 1(k) (“‘permanent . . . bodily injury’
means . . . loss or substantial impairment of the function of . . . mental faculty[.]”).

        We also emphasize that the “bodily injury” itself must be permanent or life-threatening.
This requires an analysis of the actual injuries the victim sustained, not of the circumstances of
the assault, however shocking or egregious. “The enhancement for causing ‘bodily injury’ is
premised upon a particular result, not the defendant’s conduct.” United States v. Perkins, 89
F.3d 303, 308 (6th Cir. 1996). To the extent that the district court relied on the circumstances of
the kidnapping to indicate that the enhancement applied under the first definition in the
commentary, it erred. But such error is harmless because T.F.’s injuries fit within the plain
meaning of “permanent or life-threatening bodily injury.”

        We    have    previously    affirmed   district   courts’   applications   of      the   U.S.S.G.
§ 2A4.1(b)(2)(A) enhancement and the commentary found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1.                       See, e.g.,
Baggett, 342 F.3d at 540 (holding that “the finding by the district court that Baggett inflicted
permanent or life-threatening bodily injury to the victim,” which included a fractured finger, a
cracked tooth, “substantial” contusions and bruises, spatial disorientation, and severe bleeding,
“was not clearly erroneous”); United States v. Washington, 702 F.3d 886, 897 (6th Cir. 2012)
(holding the district court did not commit clear error when applying the enhancement for
permanent or life-threatening injuries when the victim was shot four times resulting in the use of
a colostomy bag, insertion of a steel rod in his leg, and “a permanent impairment in the use of his
hand”); United States v. Mays, 285 F. App’x 269, 274–75 (6th Cir. 2008) (remanding to the
district court with instructions to consider applying the four-level enhancement for permanent or
 No. 22-5099                            United States v. Medlin                            Page 10

life-threatening bodily injury when the victim sustained four gunshot wounds and two collapsed
lungs).

          We continue to do so today, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it applied the enhancement. Medlin’s sentence is therefore procedurally reasonable.

B. Alleged Sentencing Disparities

          Medlin separately argues that his sentence must be vacated because the district court
erred in comparing the roles of Medlin and his co-defendants, as well as their respective criminal
histories, when sentencing Medlin.         Because Medlin failed to raise this objection during
sentencing, we review the district court’s comparisons to his co-defendants for plain error. See
United States v. Donadeo, 910 F.3d 886, 893 (6th Cir. 2018). Plain error requires “(1) error (2)
that was obvious or clear, (3) that affected defendant’s substantial rights and (4) that affected the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” United States v. Wallace,
597 F.3d 794, 802 (6th Cir. 2010).

          True, courts imposing a sentence must consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). But § 3553(a)(6) “requires only a national comparison, not a
comparison of codefendants in the same case.” United States v. Walls, 546 F.3d 728, 737 n.3
(6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 521 (6th Cir. 2008)).
Section 3553(a)(6) is also “an improper vehicle for challenging” a within-guidelines sentence,
and Medlin’s sentence is within the guidelines range. United States v. Volkman, 797 F.3d 377,
400 (6th Cir. 2015). In short, there are no grounds to say that the district court improperly
compared the defendants in the case under § 3553(a)(6), and so the district court did not commit
plain error. Accordingly, Medlin’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

                                         III. CONCLUSION

          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.