United States v. Butler
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19264
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Brothers James and Marlin Butler sold guided deer hunts to out-of-state clients in Comanche County, Kansas, including lodging, meals, and guiding services while encouraging hunting-law violations.
- They pled guilty to conspiring to sell and transport poached wildlife under the Lacey Act; James pled additional obstruction counts; Marlin pled a substantive Lacey Act violation.
- The district court valued the wildlife by the total guided-hunt price (about $3,500–$5,000 per hunt) and found the deer totaled $120,000, applying an eight-level enhancement and a leader/organizer enhancement.
- Restitution and fines were imposed, including $25,000 to Kansas for wildlife restoration and $25,000 to the Lacey Act Reward Fund, with special conditions prohibiting hunting-related activities for both brothers.
- The court treated the ‘market value’ of the deer under U.S.S.G. 2Q2.1 and its commentary as the price of the guided hunt, and thus erred by not establishing the actual retail market value of the deer itself.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, vacating special conditions that interfered with occupation and determining the proper market value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper valuation of market value under 2Q2.1 | Government advocates guide-hunt price as market value per Atkinson. | Butlers contend market value is the animal’s own fair-market price, not expedition cost. | Market value is the animal’s fair-market price; remand to determine actual value. |
| Imposition of leader/organizer enhancement | Evidence supports James's leadership role. | Challenge to enhancement application. | Affirmed the leader/organizer enhancement. |
| MVRA restitution to Kansas as victim | MVRA requires restitution for identifiable victims; Kansas suffered loss. | Dispute over whether Kansas qualifies as MVRA victim. | Kansas properly designated as MVRA victim; loss found. |
| Special conditions of supervision interfering with occupation | Conditions reasonably related to offense and protect the public. | Conditions overly broad and hinder James's employment. | Vacated special conditions due to lack of minimal-restriction findings. |
| Reasonableness of James Butler's sentence | Sentence within Guidelines given value and enhancements. | Sentence may be unreasonable given valuation and conditions. | Not decided on substantive reasonableness due to remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stenberg, 803 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1986) (context for Lacey Act amendments and guiding revenue considerations)
- United States v. Atkinson, 966 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir. 1992) (guidance that full guide-fee may be treated as value under Lacey Act)
- United States v. Dobbs, 629 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2011) (definition of fair-market price guiding value interpretation)
- United States v. Campbell, 372 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2004) (remand for de novo sentencing review when factual support lacking)
- United States v. Tindall, 519 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 2008) (burden on government to prove facts supporting sentence enhancements)
- United States v. Souser, 405 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2005) (requirement of minimal-restriction findings for employment-impacting conditions)