United States v. Frank White
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13121
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In May 2015 Frank White robbed a Kansas City bank, obtained $1,971 (including marked bills), and fled; a tracking device led police to him and he was arrested after a brief chase with most stolen money recovered.
- After fleeing the bank White forced entry into a nearby home, told a resident he had a gun, and demanded car keys (resident refused); no testimony or evidence at sentencing established a vehicle was present.
- White pleaded guilty to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The PSR set a base offense level 20, applied enhancements for taking from a financial institution and for carjacking (two levels each), gave a three-level acceptance reduction, producing total offense level 21 and a Guideline range of 77–96 months (CHC VI).
- White objected to the carjacking enhancement for lack of evidence a vehicle was in the victim’s presence. The district court sustained the objection was reasonable but concluded the facts supported attempted carjacking and adopted the PSR range.
- The district court varied upward based on § 3553(a) factors — emphasizing the dangerousness of bank robberies, White’s criminal history, and public protection — and sentenced White to 120 months (above the Guideline range). The court stated it would have imposed the same sentence even without the carjacking enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carjacking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5) | White: insufficient evidence a motor vehicle was in the person or presence of the victim; enhancement improper | Government: enhancement may rest on attempted carjacking (substantial step) even if no vehicle present | Court: any error in applying enhancement was harmless because district court said it would impose same sentence under § 3553(a) regardless |
| Adequacy of district court's explanation for upward variance | White: district court failed to adequately explain reasons for upward variance | Government: district court articulated relevant § 3553(a) factors and reasons for variance | Court: no plain procedural error; record shows court considered § 3553(a) factors and adequately explained the sentence |
| Substantive reasonableness of 120-month sentence | White: sentence substantively unreasonable, overly reliant on criminal history, and bank robbery was non-violent for him | Government: district court reasonably weighed danger, criminal history, and need to protect public | Court: no abuse of discretion; despite large variance, court reasonably considered relevant factors and justified the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Casteel, 663 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2011) (defining "presence" for carjacking context)
- United States v. Burns, 701 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1983) (defining "presence" in vehicle-related offenses)
- United States v. Carlisle, 118 F.3d 1271 (8th Cir. 1997) (substantial-step test for attempt)
- United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2010) (factual impossibility not a defense to attempt)
- United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2016) (harmless error where court would have imposed same sentence)
- United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221 (8th Cir. 2015) (harmless-error principles in sentencing calculations)
- United States v. Sayles, 674 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court must identify contested issues and explain overall sentence)
- United States v. Sanchez-Martinez, 633 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming sentence when court states it would set Guidelines aside and explain reasons)
- United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2009) (court need not mechanically recite § 3553(a) factors; must show consideration)
- United States v. Little Hawk, 449 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2006) (same principle on § 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Moore, 565 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard)
- United States v. Benton, 627 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2010) (adequacy of sentencing explanation)
- United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (factors for finding abuse of discretion in sentencing)