United States v. Eustis
680 F. App'x 1
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Eustis was convicted after a bench trial of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9), 924(a)(2).
- On August 26, 2012, Eustis accidentally shot himself with a .22 pistol near a campfire with his girlfriend; firearms were found nearby after police searched a wooded area.
- District court assigned an adjusted offense level of 18 and CHC III, yielding a recommended Guidelines sentence of 33–41 months.
- The court then upwardly departed, citing (i) intimidation by bringing the pistol to the campfire, (ii) a jailhouse call pressuring the girlfriend to recant, (iii) prior domestic assault history showing danger to intimate partners, and (iv) two other threatened incidents not resulting in convictions.
- Ultimately, the district court sentenced Eustis to 51 months, then he timely appealed the sentence.
- The First Circuit affirmed, upholding the upward departure and the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly upwardly departed based on CHC under §4A1.3(a)(1). | Eustis argues double-counting; CHC already reflects prior convictions. | United States contends departure may use broader factors not captured by CHC. | No error; departure justified by additional relevant information not fully captured by CHC. |
| Whether the district court relied on uncharged or non-convicted conduct to justify the upward departure. | Eustis says court relied only on convictions, violating double-counting rules. | Court also used uncharged incidents per §4A1.3(a)(2)(E). | Court properly considered uncharged incidents to support departure. |
| Whether the sentence was adequately explained to support an above-Guidelines punishment within the adjusted range. | Sentence explanation insufficient for increased CHC and 51-month term. | Court gave detailed reasoning for elevating CHC and imposing maximum within range. | Explanation sufficient; no procedural error in sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nelson, 793 F.3d 202 (1st Cir. 2015) (procedural reasonableness standards for sentencing; abuse of discretion review)
- United States v. Trinidad-Acosta, 773 F.3d 298 (1st Cir. 2014) (guidelines and departure standards; consideration of 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Morrison, 946 F.2d 484 (7th Cir. 1991) (upward departure based on information not captured by CHC; nonexclusive list of circumstances)
- United States v. Wallace, 573 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2009) (double-counting concerns; different sentencing concerns may be accounted for by separate guidelines)