United States v. Jesse Waln
916 F.3d 1113
8th Cir.2019Background
- Jesse J. Waln was indicted for multiple burglaries, larcenies, and two counts of possession of a stolen firearm arising from burglaries on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in 2016; co-defendants pleaded guilty.
- Waln pled guilty the morning of trial to two counts (May incident larceny and burglary) but proceeded to trial on the November counts; the jury acquitted him of the November burglary/larceny counts.
- The jury convicted Waln of two counts of possession of a stolen firearm (a Savage .204 rifle and a Benelli SuperNova shotgun) tied to the November burglaries.
- At sentencing the district court declined to give acceptance-of-responsibility credit for the counts tried to verdict, finding Waln had testified untruthfully and applied a U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement.
- The court sentenced Waln to a total of 70 months’ imprisonment (concurrent and partially consecutive terms) and stated the sentence was appropriate regardless of guideline range.
- Waln appealed, challenging (1) denial of judgment of acquittal/new trial as to the Savage rifle, and (2) denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit (and in passing the obstruction enhancement).
Issues
| Issue | Waln's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of ATF agent expert testimony re: interstate commerce / Rule 16 notice | Agent Probst was an undisclosed expert; admission violated Rule 16 and prejudiced Waln | Testimony merely established indisputable interstate nexus; any Rule 16 defect did not cause substantial prejudice | No reversible error; Waln failed to show substantial prejudice from the Rule 16 issue |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of the Savage rifle (Count VI) | Evidence insufficient; Waln denied involvement and O’Leary (possessor) invoked Fifth Amendment | Testimony of co-defendant White Eyes plus officer linking rifle to O’Leary supported that Waln knowingly possessed/attempted to sell the stolen rifle | Evidence sufficient; jury could credit White Eyes and discredit Waln |
| Application of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction at sentencing | Waln argued he should receive the reduction (counts were grouped) | District court found Waln lied at trial; counts not grouped because different victims and no common scheme; court properly considered relevant conduct and declined the reduction for the firearm counts | No procedural error; court permissibly denied acceptance credit for counts tried and found to involve untruthful testimony |
| Application of obstruction-of-justice enhancement (U.S.S.G. §3C1.1) | Implicit claim that enhancement penalizes right to testify | Government relied on district court’s finding that Waln knowingly swore falsely | Enhancement proper where court found perjurious testimony; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griffith, 786 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2007) (prejudice requirement for undisclosed expert under Rule 16)
- United States v. Jackson, 446 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2006) (high burden to prove substantial prejudice)
- United States v. White, 816 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements of §922(j) possession of stolen firearm)
- United States v. Buchanan, 604 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2010) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- United States v. Espinosa, 539 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2008) (guideline calculation errors are procedural errors under Gall)
- Adejumo v. United States, 908 F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2018) (obstruction enhancement may be based on perjurious testimony)