United States v. Bart Waddell, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13987
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Waddell pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy based on a June 2014 robbery; district court sentenced him to 57 months’ imprisonment.
- Landt and Torres-Webber lured the victim (a drug dealer) to Waddell’s apartment under a bogus buyer ruse; recorded planning included discussion of force and weapons.
- At the scene Waddell acted as the purported buyer/enforcer, sat in the victim’s car while Landt choked the victim, searched for drugs/money, and carried the victim’s backpack (containing proceeds) back to his apartment, though he did not keep the proceeds.
- At sentencing Waddell sought a downward role adjustment under USSG §3B1.2 (minor/minimal participant) but the district court denied it, finding he participated in planning, served as the enforcer, understood the scheme, and performed important acts in the robbery.
- Waddell also objected in the PSR to statements that he used a knife in two prior assaults; the district court interpreted his objections as vague and concluded he had not made a clear and specific objection, then relied on the PSR facts at sentencing.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no clear error in denial of the mitigating-role reduction and no plain error in the court’s reliance on PSR facts given Waddell’s nonspecific objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Waddell was entitled to a downward role adjustment under USSG §3B1.2 | Waddell: he was less culpable — did not plan the scheme, did not participate in the assault, did not share proceeds, lacked decision-making authority | Government/District Court: Waddell participated in planning, acted as enforcer, seized and moved proceeds, and was substantially culpable | Denied: district court’s factual findings that Waddell was not substantially less culpable than average participant were not clearly erroneous |
| Whether district court improperly relied on disputed PSR facts about prior knife use when Waddell objected | Waddell: PSR statements denying or alleging knife use were disputed and court should not rely on them without government proof | Government/District Court: Waddell’s written objections were vague; he did not make a clear and specific objection at hearing, so court could accept PSR facts | Affirmed: no plain error — objections were not clear/specific, so court permissibly relied on PSR facts |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bradley, 643 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir.) (standard: review of role-adjustment factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Bowers, 743 F.3d 1182 (8th Cir.) (PSR facts contested require government proof by preponderance before reliance)
- United States v. Davis, 583 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.) (defendant must make clear, specific objections to PSR to preserve challenge)
- United States v. Walker, 818 F.3d 416 (8th Cir.) (amendments to Guidelines commentary post-sentencing do not apply if they conflict with circuit precedent)
- United States v. Renfrew, 957 F.2d 525 (8th Cir.) (same principle regarding inapplicability of post-sentencing guideline changes)