United States v. Kenneth Godat
688 F.3d 399
8th Cir.2012Background
- Godat waived indictment and was charged by information with structuring under 31 U.S.C. §5324(a)(3) and tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. §7201 for taking money from a victim via a fictional business.
- Victim withdrew cash in small amounts just below reporting thresholds and did not report the income for tax purposes.
- Godat pled guilty under a plea agreement in which the Government would recommend a low-end Guidelines sentence and concurrent sentences.
- The district court varied upward from the Guidelines, imposing 60 months on structuring and 10 months on tax evasion, to run consecutively, and ordered restitution for the fraud.
- Godat appealed claiming the court relied on confidential probation-recommendation facts, challenging Rule 32(e)(3) and Local Rule 99.8(h), and alleging a Fifth Amendment violation when the court criticized his attorney for not cooperating with the probation office.
- The panel affirmed Godat’s sentence, holding that the district court did not rely on undisclosed facts and that any potential error did not affect substantial rights; it also declined to address facial constitutionality of the rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confidential recommendation reliance and due process | Godat argues Fifth/Sixth Amendment violations from reliance on confidential rec. | District court relied on open record and not undisclosed facts. | No reversible error; no reliance on confidential recommendations. |
| Constitutionality of Rule 32(e)(3) and Local Rule 99.8(h) | Godat contends these rules are unconstitutional. | Rules do not affect substantial rights. | Declined to rule on facial constitutionality; no impact on sentence. |
| Fifth Amendment right to remain silent vs. court critique | Court criticized attorney for advising silence; violated Fifth Amendment. | Critique did not impact sentence or rights. | No plain error; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kohley v. United States, 784 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1986) (due process when not rebutted matters; misinfo)
- United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393 (8th Cir. 1992) (confrontation concerns when sentenced on unrebutted information)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (confrontation limits on reliance for sentencing)
- United States v. Ali, 616 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)