United States v. Clark

415 F.3d 1234, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15759, 2005 WL 1799806

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 2005
• Docket: 04-3116
• Status: Published

Opinions

LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

In this direct criminal appeal, Wilma Clark argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), renders unconstitutional her sentence for drug distribution. We consider her argument in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because the court below increased Clark’s term of imprisonment based on facts that it found by a preponderance of the evidence, constitutional error plagues Clark’s sentence. Applying plain error review, we conclude that the sentence imposed affects Clark’s substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. We therefore REMAND for resentencing.

I

Clark pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally distributing more than five grams of a mixture containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At the change of plea hearing, she admitted to selling 5.48 grams of crack cocaine on June 28, 2000. Based solely on the facts to which she pled, Clark faced an offense level of 26 and a Guideline range of 110-137 months’ incarceration. U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(7).

Additional conduct was detailed in tbe pre-sentence. report (“PSR”). According to the PSR, state law enforcement officials discovered Clark either distributing or possessing crack cocaine on six separate occasions in 2003. The U.S. Probation Office recommended that the district court find Clark “responsible for” 25.45 grams of crack cocaine, which is the sum of the 5.48 grams that she distributed on June 28, 2000 and the amounts that she either possessed or distributed in 2008. Additionally, the PSR reported that on October 4, 2001, officers discovered a pistol and ammunition for various firearms in Clark’s purse while executing a search warrant at her residence. Clark stated that she was holding the gun for a man who had gone to purchase cocaine, and she admitted to having sold cocaine herself two days earlier, but officers did not discover cocaine in the home. The PSR recommended enhancing Clark’s base offense level for possession of a firearm pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l).

Clark objected to using the 2003 drug-related incidents to calculate her base offense level, arguing that the span of time between the offense of conviction and the 2003 events precluded considering the latter as relevant conduct for the former. Similarly, she argued that insufficient evidence linked the offense of conviction to her possession of a firearm fifteen months later, and therefore objected to an enhancement of her offense level for firearm possession. Overruling Clark’s objections, the district court adopted the PSR’s findings.

Because it found that Clark possessed at least 20 grams of cocaine base, the district court used a base offense level of 28. The court then enhanced the offense level to 30 because Clark possessed a firearm, and ultimately settled’on an offense level of 27 after including an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. At offense level 27, and with a criminal history category of five, Clark faced a sentencing range of 120-150 months. The district court accepted the government’s recommendation and sentenced her at the bottom of the range to 120 months’ incarceration.

II

Clark argues that the district court violated her Sixth Amendment rights by imposing a sentence based on facts that it found by a preponderance of the evidence pursuant to the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, she asserts that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely, it was constitutional error to use uncharged drug-related conduct to calculate her base offense level and to thén enhance the offense level by finding that she possessed a firearm.¹ We construe Clark’s argument as a challenge to her sentence under Booker. See United States v. Clifton, 406 F.3d 1173, 1175 n. 1 (10th Cir.2005) (this court “must apply the holdings in Blakely and Booker to all cases in which a defendant properly raised an issue under either case.”). Clark did not raise a Booker challenge below. Consequently, we review the district court’s sentencing decision for plain error under the four-part test articulated in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), which asks (1) is there error; (2) is the error plain; (3) does it affect substantial rights; and (4) does it seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir.2005) (en banc).

A district court commits constitutional Booker error when it “applies the Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, makes factual findings (other than the fact of prior convictions), and imposes a sentence above the maximum that would apply in the absence of such findings.” United States v. Yazzie, 407 F.3d 1139, 1144 (10th Cir.2005) (emphasis added). Clark pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute more than 5 grams of cocaine base. In exchange for her plea, the government agreed to recommend a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. At her plea hearing, Clark admitted to possessing 5.48 grams of cocaine base, a drug quantity which corresponds to a base offense level of 26 under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(7). When combined with Clark’s criminal history category, an offense level of 26 exposed her to a guidelines range of 110-137 months. After subtracting three levels for acceptance of responsibility, however, Clark’s maximum sentencing range based solely on facts to which she pled was 84-105 months.

Clark’s acceptance of responsibility adjustment must be included in our calculation of her sentencing range to comport with the Sixth Amendment. This is so because under the pr e-Booker mandatory guidelines regime, as the court explained in United States v. Colussi, 22 F.3d 218, 219 (9th Cir.1994):

Unlike departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, adjustments to the offense level are characteristically mandatory. The Guidelines use permissive language (i.e. “may”) in the context of departures. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. In the context of adjustments, the Guidelines use mandatory language. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 3A1, U.S.S.G. § 3B1, U.S.S.G. § 3C1; see also United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1157 (1st Cir.1993).

Section 3E1.1 thus states

(a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.

(b) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently, decrease the offense level by 1 additional level.

U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(emphasis added).

Although “[a] defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an- adjustment under this section as a matter of right,” § 3E1.1. cmt. n. 3, a defendant who pleads guilty and clearly accepts responsibility under the pr e-Booker mandatory sentencing regime most certainly was -so entitled. Once a district court has found as a matter of fact that a defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of § 3E1.1, the court has no discretion to withhold the sentencing adjustment. See United States v. Marquez, 337 F.3d 1203, 1210 (10th Cir.2003) (reversing district court’s denial of one-level reduction under § 3El.l(b) and stating that “a defendant who ‘clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense’ is entitled to a ... reduction in his offense level.”). As the Fifth Circuit has unequivocally asserted, once an affirmative determination of acceptance of responsibility has been made, “no sentencing discretion remains.” United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d 1119, 1124 (5th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Rice, 184 F.3d 740, 742 (8th Cir.1999) (“[I]f the sentencing court finds that the defendant accepted responsibility for his or her offense and entered a timely guilty plea, then the defendant is automatically entitled to the full three-level reduction available under § 3E1.1.”); United States v. Townsend, 73 F.3d 747, 755 (7th Cir.1996) (“The language of § 3E1.1 is mandatory, not permissive: When a defendant demonstrates that he is qualified for the decrease, the guideline orders the decrease.”); United States v. Talladino, 38 F.3d 1255, 1264 (1st Cir.1994) (“The language of [§ 3El.l(b) ] is absolute on its face. It simply does not confer any discretion on the sentencing judge to deny the ... reduction so long. as the [section’s] stated requirements are satisfied.”). Thus, when analyzing Booker error, “the maximum [sentence] that would apply in the absence of [impermissible factfind-ing],” Yazzie, 407 F.3d at 1144, is the guideline range supported by the facts the defendant admitted reduced by his or her acceptance of responsibility.

This makes sense because for purposes-of judicial and prosecutorial efficiency, the Sentencing Commission made the manner of conviction a factor in determining punishment by offering a defendant who pleads guilty a sentencing “discount.” As the court recognized in United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502, 512-13 (7th Cir.1998), the purpose of § 3E1.1 is “to reward those who plead guilty — saving the judiciary and Government from the time, expense and effort of trial — or who take some other equivalently concrete act, such as pretrial payment of full restitution.” (quotations omitted). It goes without saying that one of the primary reasons a defendant pleads guilty is to obtain the acceptance of responsibility reduction. Where the court finds a defendant has clearly accepted responsibility in a timely fashion, therefore, the maximum guidelines sentence authorized by the defendant’s guilty plea necessarily includes the three-point reduction.

In the present case, Clark pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which the government agreed to recommend to the district court that Clark be given a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. In other words, the acceptance of responsibility reduction was Clark’s to lose. See § 3E1.1. cmt. n. 3 (“Entry of a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of trial combined with truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of conviction ... will constitute significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility”). The PSR mirrored the government’s recommendation and, in fashioning a sentence, the district court accepted these recommendations. Without the sentencing enhancements based on judge-found facts, but with the acceptance of responsibility adjustment, Ms. Clark faced an offense level of 23 with a mandatory guidelines range of 84-105 months. We therefore conclude that Clark received a sentence exceeding the maximum that would have applied had the district court not made findings with respect to the quantity of drugs or possession of a firearm.²

In Yazzie, we held that constitutional error does not occur when the sentencing court increases the sentencing range by way of judge-found facts coupled with the mandatory application of the Guidelines but the actual sentence imposed is within the non-enhanced range. Yazzie, 407 F.3d at 1145. We did not have occasion in Yazzie, however, to fully discuss what constitutes the non-enhanced range. In Yaz-zie, the district court rejected a three-level acceptance of responsibility reduction similar to the one issued in this case. Thus, in Yazzie, the PSR-reeommended range constituted the enhanced range, and the non-enhanced range was simply the range that would have applied absent adoption of the PSR’s recommended enhancements.

Here we face a very different scenario. The Government and the PSR both recommended, and the district court accepted, a three-level acceptance of responsibility reduction. This reduced sentencing range constitutes the non-enhanced range in this case. Because it is clear that the district court would have applied the three-level reduction even in the absence of the enhancements, it would be inequitable to exclude it from the non-enhanced sentence. Moreover, excluding the recommended reduction from the non-enhanced sentence, in light of the district court’s determination to apply the reduction regardless of the applicability of the enhancements, simply misreads the record. Therefore, we conclude the non-enhanced range in this case is 84-110 months’ incarceration.

Constitutional Booker error plagues Clark’s sentence, and all constitutional Booker errors satisfy the first two prongs of plain error review. To meet her burden on the third prong, Clark must show “a reasonable probability that, but for the error claimed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.2005). Our recent jurisprudence provides at least two ways that a defendant may demonstrate such a reasonable probability. First, a defendant may show that, when viewing the facts of her case in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors, the district court “would reasonably impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range.” Dazey, 403 F.3d at 1175. Second, a defendant aggrieved by constitutional Booker error may show that her substantial rights were affected if she establishes a “reasonable probability that a jury applying a reasonable doubt standard would not have found the same material facts that a judge found by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.

There is a reasonable probability that a jury would not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark was responsible for at least 20 grams of crack cocaine. Under the Guidelines, a sentencing court in calculating the quantity of drugs involved in an offense should consider all quantities stemming from a defendant’s “relevant conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 12 (“Types and quantities of drugs not specified in the count of conviction may be considered in determining the offense level. See § lB1.3(a)(2) (Relevant conduct).”). Whether a specific offense constitutes relevant conduct to the offense of conviction depends in substantial part on whether the offenses form the “same course of conduct,” which in turn depends on “the degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the offenses.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. 9(B).³

Clark argues that the time interval separating the offenses alone — approximately three years — -justifies the conclusion that the offenses were not part of the same course of conduct. She also argues that her alleged offenses did not become “regular” until the spring of 2003. Clark’s offense of conviction occurred on June 28, 2000, when she sold 5.48 grams of crack cocaine. The PSR did not report, and the district court did not find, that Clark sold any quantity of any drug in either 2001 or 2002. The court did find that Clark sold 19.97 grams of crack cocaine on five separate occasions between May 20, 2003 and September 23, 2003. Although the offense of conviction and the 2003 events all involved sales of small user amounts of crack cocaine, and therefore are quite similar, there is a reasonable probability that a jury would not find the showing of similarity sufficiently strong to compensate for the absence of temporal proximity or regularity. See § 1B1.3, cmt. 9(B). (“When one of the above factors is absent, a stronger presence of at least one of the other factors is required.”). Consequently, there is a reasonable probability that a jury would not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark is responsible for over 20 grams of crack cocaine, leading us to conclude that the district court’s drug quantity finding affected Clark’s substantiál rights.

The district court also found that Clark possessed a firearm in relation to her offense, and enhanced her sentence two levels under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). When seeking an enhancement under that Guideline provision, the government bears the burden of proving “that a temporal and spatial relation existed between the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” United States v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973, 982 (10th Cir.1993). At first glance, it may appear that the government must show proximity between possession of -a firearm and the offense of conviction to support a § 2Dl.l(b)(l) enhancement. However, courts may apply the firearm-possession adjustment if the government proves that a close nexus exists between possession of a firearm and any drug offense, provided that the drug offense constitutes “relevant conduct” with regard to the offense of conviction. See id. (“Even when a guilty plea is entered on a single count of possession, the court must nevertheless look to the entire relevant conduct in determining the sentence. That conduct ... includes possession of a gun while engaging in drug sales related to, though distinct from, the crime of conviction'.”). Thus, the questions for the fact finder in this case are whether Clark’s possession of a weapon and ammunition on October 4, 2001 was closely related to a drug offense, and whether that drug offense is relevant conduct with respect to the offense of conviction on June 28, 2000.

In support of its argument that Clark possessed a weapon in relation to a drug offense, the government points to Clark’s admissions to the investigating officers that she was holding the gun until its owner returned from purchasing crack cocaine and that Clark herself had sold cocaine two days earlier. Clark counters that even if she possessed a gun in relation to a drug offense, that offense is dissimilar from the offense of conviction, the two offenses are insufficiently regular, and they occurred over a year apart from each other; therefore, she argues, they do not constitute the same course of conduct. As to similarity, she states that the offense of conviction involved the sale of cocaine whereas officers did not discover any cocaine in her residence when they discovered the firearm. Furthermore, two isolated events fifteen months apart, she argues, are not sufficiently regular or temporally proximate to justify the enhancement.

We conclude that there exists a reasonable probability that a jury would find that the fifteen month interval between the offenses renders them temporally distant, and that under the facts of this case Clark’s drug-related activity was insufficiently regular. Pursuant to the Guidelines, then, a jury finding that the offense of conviction and Clark’s possession of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking were part of the same course of conduct would require a strong showing of similarity between the two offenses. Clark’s admission to selling cocaine two days before officers found her in possession of the firearm, and the fact that the weapon belonged to a man who was in the course of purchasing cocaine, would not have persuaded a jury that the two offenses were sufficiently similar to overcome the temporal distance between, and irregularity of, the two offenses. Moreover, applying the third Olano factor less rigidly, as we must, we are confident that there is a reasonable probability that a jury would not have found that Clark’s possession of the firearm was part of the same course of conduct as her offense of conviction. See Dazey, 403 F.3d at 1174 (“We conduct this analysis less rigidly when reviewing a potential constitutional error.”). Thus, the district court’s decision to adjust Clark’s sentence pursuant to § 2Dl.l(b)(l) affected her substantial rights.⁴

Having concluded that Clark has met her burden under the third factor of the plain error test, we now determine whether, under the fourth factor, the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 736. Because this case involves constitutional Booker error, we apply the fourth prong standard less rigidly. Clifton, 406 F.3d at 1182. To determine whether to exercise our discretion and notice the error, we consider “the strength or lack of evidence supporting the defendant’s sentence under the Guidelines.” Id. We also consider whether “evidence in the record demonstrates that the district court would impose the same sentence even under an advisory Guidelines system.” United States v. Lawrence, 405 F.3d 888, 908 (10th Cir.2005).

In the sentencing proceedings below, Clark forcefully disputed the court’s findings with respect to the amount of drugs and possession of a firearm. See Dazey, 403 F.3d at 1178 (concluding that fourth prong is met, in part, because “Mr. Dazey vigorously contested the judge-found facts that enhanced his sentence.”). Moreover, the evidence in the record by no means leads ineluctably to the conclusion that either the drug sales in 2003 or the drug activity associated with possession of a weapon in October 2001 constitute relevant conduct with respect to the offense of conviction; rather, the evidence is easily susceptible to differing interpretations by a fact finder. Furthermore, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that the court would impose a lower sentence on remand. The court imposed sentence at the very bottom of the Guidelines range, suggesting that if initially afforded discretion, the court may have imposed a lower sentence. Additionally, counsel argued at the sentencing hearing that Clark “was involved in these incidents because of her addiction. She doesn’t move drugs.... She owns up to what she does better than almost any client I think I’ve ever seen.” On that basis, and the fact that Clark has “serious medical problems,” Clark sought placement at the Fort Worth Medical Center, and the district court made that recommendation. Such arguments would be relevant to the district court’s exercise of discretion when imposing sentence in light of the § 3553(a) factors.

Our final inquiry under the fourth prong is “whether the Booker error substantially increased the defendant’s sentence.” Clifton, 406 F.3d at 1182. Had the district court not increased Clark’s sentence based on its unconstitutional findings, Clark likely would have received a sentence of 84 months. This 84-month sentence is based on the facts to which Clark pled, and accounts for the government’s recommendations of an acceptance of responsibility reduction and a sentence at the bottom of the applicable range, which the district court accepted. Clark’s 120-month sentence represents a substantial increase from what she likely would have received had the district court not committed Booker error.

The fourth prong of Olano speaks in the disjunctive: Our inquiry is (1) does the gulf between the constitutional sentence and the unconstitutional sentence undermine the fairness of the proceedings below; (2) does it impact the overall integrity of the sentencing process; or (3) does it implicate the public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (“the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”) (emphasis added); Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 736. We are not prepared to say that an unconstitutionally imposed sentence leading to three years’ additional incarceration is fair; nor are we prepared to say that consigning someone to three years in prison on an unlawful basis does not impact the integrity of the process; finally, we doubt that the public would retain confidence in a system that would countenance such an unconstitutional sentence — thus the public reputation of judicial proceedings is implicated.

Defendants are not required to prove all three elements of the fourth prong. Even though one element would suffice, we conclude that Clark has met her burden under all three, requiring us to remand.⁵

Ill

We REMAND this matter to the district court with instructions to vacate defendant’s sentence imposed in this case and resentence defendant in accordance with Booker.

1 . The dissent asserts that Clark is barred from raising this argument because she waived her right to raise a Booker argument on appeal in her plea agreement. However, the government neither filed a motion to enforce Clarks plea agreement, see United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam), nor argued, in its brief that we should dismiss Clark’s appeal on the basis of her appellate rights waiver. See United States v. Clayton, 416 F.3d 1236, 1239, 2005 WL 1799819, No. 04-3394 (10th Cir. August 1, 2005). Accordingly, we decline to address the issue, as it is not jurisdictional in nature. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1322-25.

2 . Keeping the acceptance of responsibility reduction constant, it is clear that the two enhancements challenged in this case increased Clark's sentence above the maximum she would have received in their absence. With the acceptance of responsibility reduction, Clark faced a range of 84-105 months without the enhancements (level 23) and a range of 120-150 months with the enhancements (level 27). Without the reduction, she faced a range of 110-137 months without the enhancements (level 26) and 151-188 months with the enhancements (level 30).

3 . Additionally, an offense may be relevant conduct to the offense of conviction if the two offenses constitute a “common scheme or plan.” U.S.S.G. § IB 1.3(a)(2). There is no evidence in the record to support a finding that any of the 2003 drug offenses or the conduct surrounding firearm possession in 2001 were part of a “common scheme or plan” with respect to the- offense of conviction. We consider at length whether the various offenses were part of the “same course of conduct,” because "[o]ffenses that do not qualify as part of a common scheme or plan may nonetheless qualify as part of the same course of conduct....” § 1B1.3, cmt. 9(B).

4 . The relevant conduct section, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), includes an offense only if three prerequisites are met: (1) the offense in question involved conduct described in §§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) and (B); (2) the offense would require grouping with the offense of conviction under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d); and (3) the offense is part of the "same course of conduct" or "common scheme or plan" as the offense of conviction. United States v. Taylor, 97 F.3d 1360, 1363 (10th Cir.1996). All three prerequisites must apply for an offense to qualify as relevant conduct. Because we conclude that neither the alleged 2003 drug activity nor the firearm possession form part of the "same course of conduct” or "common scheme or plan” as the offense of conviction, we need not address the first two prerequisites.

5 . Clark also argues that insufficient evidence supported the district court's findings with respect to the quantity of drugs and firearm possession. Because we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing on Booker grounds, we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence argument.