United States v. Charles Eagle Pipe
911 F.3d 1245
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- Defendant Charles Eagle Pipe pleaded guilty to domestic assault by a habitual offender under 18 U.S.C. § 117.
- Presentence Report (PSR) assigned one criminal-history point (Category I) but listed 69–101 prior Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court convictions (not counted in federal CHC).
- PSR noted that if tribal convictions were counted, they would yield 16 criminal-history points and place him in Category VI.
- District court gave advance notice of a possible upward departure under USSG § 4A1.3 for underrepresented criminal history, found Category I inadequate, and treated defendant as in Category IV for guideline calculation.
- Court imposed a 45-month sentence (crediting 12 months served in tribal custody), an upward departure to Category IV and a one-month downward variance from the revised advisory range.
- Eagle Pipe appealed, arguing procedural error (insufficient explanation; reliance on erroneous facts) and substantive unreasonableness; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by failing to explain rejection of CHC I–III when departing upward under § 4A1.3 | Eagle Pipe: court failed to adequately explain why Categories I–III were rejected and did not compare to Category IV defendants | Government: court provided sufficient indicia and PSR showed tribal convictions would place him in Category VI; defendant waived objections by not objecting below | Waived on appeal; even for plain-error review, court sufficiently explained why intermediary categories were inappropriate and departure was justified under § 4A1.3 |
| Whether court relied on clearly erroneous facts (number of tribal convictions; remarks about reservation domestic violence) | Eagle Pipe: sentencing relied on unclear/conflicting record numbers and improper factual generalizations about domestic violence prevalence | Government: differences in counts (69 vs. 101) did not affect conclusion that CHC I was inadequate; defendant failed to object to remarks at sentencing | No plain error; factual discrepancies immaterial and record does not show remarks were a principal basis for sentence |
| Whether the upward departure was substantively unreasonable | Eagle Pipe: departure improperly based on tribal convictions and unsupported comments, making sentence substantively unreasonable | Government: departure valid under § 4A1.3(a); court then varied downward slightly from revised range, explaining reasoning | No abuse of discretion; sentence was well supported and not substantively unreasonable |
| Whether defendant’s failure to object below forfeited appellate review | Eagle Pipe: argued error merits reversal despite no objection | Government: procedural default; appellate review limited to plain error | Court held arguments waived; plain-error review yielded no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719 (8th Cir. 2015) (failure to object at sentencing waives procedural challenges on appeal)
- United States v. Shillingstad, 632 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (tribal offenses may justify upward departure under § 4A1.3)
- United States v. Azure, 536 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court need not mechanically discuss each rejected CHC but must show why intermediary categories are inappropriate)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural error includes sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts; reversal standards explained)
- United States v. M.R.M., 513 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2008) (defendant’s failure to object forecloses opportunity to correct alleged sentencing comments)
- United States v. Stokes, 750 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2014) (comments at sentencing must be a principal basis for the sentence to warrant reversal)
- United States v. Gant, 663 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for assessing whether extraneous comments affected sentencing outcome)