United States v. Holmes
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12111
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Holmes convicted on six counts of willfully setting public lands on fire under 18 U.S.C. § 1855, burning about 1,000 acres of BLM land with sagebrush and vegetation.
- Holmes argued for a lower base offense level by contending the fires did not destroy a place of public use.
- District court applied § 2K1.4(a)(1) (destruction of a place of public use) and sentenced Holmes to 72 months.
- On appeal, government argued the fires destroyed macrobiotic crust and cheatgrass issues supported higher damage.
- Court held the destruction of land requires evidence of long-term loss of a principal use and remanded for proper factual analysis.
- Judge Kleinfeld concurred in result, noting aggravating factors and suggesting a different approach on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the land was destroyed under § 2K1.4(a)(1) | Government argues land destruction due to ecological damages. | Holmes contends no destruction, only short-term damage. | Remand to resolve whether destruction occurred. |
| What constitutes destruction of land for purposes of § 2K1.4 | Destruction includes long-term loss of aesthetic/environmental uses. | Destruction requires more than temporary damage. | Destruction requires loss of principal uses for a significant period, with evidence. |
| Whether 24-level base offense was appropriate | Holmes committed high-end arson requiring 24. | 24 overstates severity; may fit 20. | On remand, district court to determine appropriate level with proper evidence. |
| Whether procedural errors infected the sentence | District court erred in evidentiary basis for destruction. | Procedural errors require resentencing. | Sentence vacated and remanded per Carty for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (standing; environmental harm as cognizable injury)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (harm to recreational, aesthetic, and economic interests cognizable)
- U.S. v. Ressam, 629 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 2010) (contextual analysis in security cases)
- United States v. 1996 Freightliner Fld., 634 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2011) (statutory/constitutional interpretation guidance)