United States v. Krafft

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: March 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-5023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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