United States v. Donald Strange
692 F. App'x 346
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Two unrelated defendants (Strange and Campos) appealed application of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) and raised vagueness challenges to that Guideline; Campos also appealed a $5,000 special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a).
- § 2L1.1(b)(6) increases offense level when the offense "involved intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." Application Note 5 lists transporting persons in a trunk as an example of reckless conduct.
- Strange transported two people in a car trunk in July in Arizona; trunk passengers testified it was hot and they could not communicate with the driver or access the passenger compartment.
- Campos transported two people in a trunk; one passenger feared asphyxiation, an escape lever was present but passengers were unaware of it, and Campos drove at a high rate of speed on the highway before apprehension.
- The district courts applied the § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement in both cases and imposed a $5,000 special assessment on Campos payable in installments; both judgments were appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2L1.1(b)(6) is unconstitutionally vague | Government: Guideline not subject to vagueness challenge after Beckles | Strange/Campos: Guideline void for vagueness | Rejected—vagueness challenges precluded by Beckles v. United States |
| Whether trunk transport supports § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement (Strange) | Government: transporting in trunk is reckless per Application Note 5 | Strange: conduct not rising to substantial risk of death/serious injury | Affirmed—district court findings (hot trunk, no communication/access) support enhancement |
| Whether trunk transport supports § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement (Campos) | Government: facts (inability to communicate, fear of asphyxiation, high speed) satisfy reckless substantial risk | Campos: presence of escape lever mitigates risk | Affirmed—passengers unaware of lever and high speed limited its utility; enhancement appropriate |
| Whether $5,000 special assessment against Campos was unreasonable | Government: assessment permitted and payable in installments based on ability to pay | Campos: challenged assessment as excessive | Affirmed—district court did not clearly err in finding ability to pay and assessment was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines are not subject to void-for-vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- United States v. Bernardo, 818 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2016) (deference to Guideline commentary; upholding (b)(6) where transport analogous to trunk transport)
- United States v. Martin, 796 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2015) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative unless inconsistent or plainly erroneous)
- United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review: clear error for facts, abuse of discretion for guideline application)
- United States v. Dixon, 201 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding enhancements for dangerous transport methods)
- United States v. Torres-Flores, 502 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing (b)(6) enhancement application)
- United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for assessing defendant's ability to pay special assessments)