United States v. James Hess
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13090
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- James Hess, an Iowa taxidermist, pled guilty to one count of Lacey Act trafficking for involvement in the purchase and sale of black rhinoceros horns transported and sold in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
- Transactions: April 2011 sale to an agent (Steffen) for $40,000; August 2011 purchase in Oregon for $16,000 (using a purported Oregon buyer's ID), shipped to Iowa, then sold via Steffen to Kha for $50,000. The August 2011 transaction formed the basis of the charge.
- Hess waived indictment and stipulated with the government to a 12-level Guidelines enhancement based on agreed market value of the horns between $200,000 and $400,000, producing an advisory range of 27–33 months (offense level 17, criminal history II).
- At sentencing Hess sought a downward variance (probation); the government opposed. The district court denied the variance and imposed 27 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- Hess appealed, arguing (1) the district court plainly erred by saying his conduct helped establish a market for poached rhino horns; and (2) the sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), given his acceptance of responsibility, limited criminal history, and allegedly more lenient sentences for others in Operation Crash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hess) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court plainly erred by stating Hess "helped establish a market" for poached black rhino horns | Statement was speculative; August horns were originally acquired legally (1957) and Hess did not create market demand for poached horns | Agent testimony and Hess’s conduct (use of false ID, interstate shipment knowing resale) supported the court’s market-impact finding | No plain error; court’s remark supported by record and expert testimony |
| Whether the 27-month within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a) | Hess urged downward variance citing acceptance of responsibility, limited record, family impact, and disparate sentences of others in Operation Crash | District court considered § 3553(a) factors, criminal history, deterrence, protection of public, and declined to speculate about other districts’ sentences | Sentence affirmed as reasonable; presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877 (8th Cir.) (plain-error review framework for unobjected-to sentencing statements)
- United States v. Bernal, 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir.) (Lacey Act legislative purpose to reduce international market and poaching)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (sentencing review standards)
- United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir.) (affirming careful district-court explanation for refusal to vary downward)
- United States v. Wanna, 744 F.3d 584 (8th Cir.) (quoting necessity of explanation when denying variance)