United States v. Hagen
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11390
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- In September 2009 Hagen, a 27-year-old truck driver, began a sexual relationship with N.M., his girlfriend's 13-year-old daughter, in Fredericksburg, Iowa.
- Hagen took N.M. on trips to Bonner Springs, Kansas, where he fondled her, and over the following months engaged in escalating sexual acts including digital penetration, oral sex, intercourse, and coercive conduct.
- During one encounter Hagen transported N.M. six hours away and told her to lie to her mother about what happened.
- In December 2009 NM disclosed the abuse to clinic staff; on February 18, 2010 a federal grand jury indicted Hagen for transporting a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), based on the second trip.
- Hagen pled guilty; the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 235–293 months, with an offense level of 38 after applying enhancements for undue influence and a vulnerable victim, and a 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- Hagen was sentenced at the top of the range, 293 months, and he challenged the district court’s application of the two enhancements as procedural errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) undue influence enhancement was properly applied | Hagen argues the enhancement should not apply | District court correctly found undue influence based on victim's vulnerability and Hagen's conduct | District court did not clearly err; undue influence enhancement applied |
| Whether § 3A1.1(b)(1) vulnerable victim enhancement was properly applied | Hagen argues he did not know of victim's vulnerability due to his learning disabilities | Court properly found Hagen knew or should have known of the vulnerability | Record supports knowing/vulnerability finding; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for sentencing procedural errors)
- United States v. Cordy, 560 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of guideline calculations; clear-error for facts)
- United States v. Myers, 481 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2007) (grounds for reviewing undue-influence/related findings)
- United States v. Lay, 583 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2009) (undue influence reasoning for minor victims)
- United States v. Castellon, 213 Fed. Appx. 732 (10th Cir. 2007) (evidence of transporting victim for sexual liaisons supports undue influence)
- United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2010) (victim's willingness not controlling for § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B))
- United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2004) (considers victim consent irrelevance to certain enhancements)
- United States v. Replogle, 628 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2011) (knowledge/awareness standard for vulnerable-victim enhancements)
- United States v. Moskal, 211 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2000) (guideline-note interpretation for vulnerability enhancements)