United States v. David Schultz, II
664 F. App'x 610
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant David Schultz taught Kaplan and Strycharske how to manufacture hash oil; an explosion was involved in the underlying conduct.
- Schultz was convicted in federal court for offenses related to hash oil manufacture and sentenced to 108 months' imprisonment by the Western District of Washington (Judge Robart).
- Schultz conceded he instructed others in the manufacturing process; the district court found him a supervisor and applied a two-level USSG § 3B1.1(c) enhancement.
- After the federal offense, Schultz suffered a separate California conviction and served time in state custody; the district court considered that conviction during § 3553(a) sentencing analysis.
- Schultz sought a downward adjustment under USSG § 5G1.3 and a departure under § 5K2.23 based on time served in California; the district court did not grant those motions.
- Schultz appealed, challenging (1) the supervisor enhancement, (2) consideration of the California conviction at sentencing, and (3) substantive reasonableness of the 108-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Schultz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3B1.1(c) supervisor enhancement was proper | Enhancement valid because defendant instructed and controlled others during the manufacturing process | Schultz argued he was not a supervisor | Court: Affirmed; single instance of directing others suffices and record supports finding he taught/controlled others |
| Whether district court erred by not granting downward adjustment under § 5G1.3/§ 5K2.23 | No error; adjustment only applies if state term is for "relevant conduct," which was not shown | Argued he should receive credit/adjustment for time served in California | Court: Motion was frivolous; no relevant-conduct link, so no plain-error in not addressing it further |
| Whether consideration of the California conviction in § 3553(a) was improper because it increased criminal history points | Court may consider background and conduct without limitation during § 3553(a) analysis | Schultz argued district court double-counted the conviction by using it for criminal history and as an aggravating factor | Court: No abuse of discretion; temporal proximity showed recidivism and public-safety risk justifying upward variance |
| Whether 108-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Sentence within statutory max and justified by § 3553(a) factors; detailed district-court reasoning | Schultz argued the 67-month variance above Guidelines (33–41 months) was excessive | Court: Affirmed; under abuse-of-discretion review the upward departure was reasonable given the totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard: supervisor-finding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Pineda-Doval, 692 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2012) (definition of clear-error review for factual findings)
- United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) (single incident of directing others can support § 3B1.1 enhancement)
- United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012) (failure-to-address-arguments reviewed for plain error if not raised below)
- United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain-error framework cited)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (elements of plain error review)
- United States v. Boykin, 785 F.3d 1352 (9th Cir. 2015) (district court may consider defendant's background and conduct without limitation in § 3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Brown, 985 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1993) (same principle regarding § 3553(a) information scope)
- United States v. Reyes, 764 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014) (temporal proximity and recidivism can justify upward variance)
- United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (consider totality of circumstances, including degree of variance)
- United States v. Crowe, 563 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (sentence must be sufficient but not greater than necessary under § 3553(a))