United States v. Kenneth Sandidge
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6487
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In April 2012, deputies found a loaded .32 caliber revolver wedged in the couch of Kenneth Sandidge’s home after a woman, Barbara Harris, fled alleging he had pointed the gun at her and sexually assaulted her. Sandidge was a felon and later pled guilty (open plea) to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The PSR set a base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4) (20) because Sandidge had a prior violent conviction, and recommended a 4-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (firearm used in connection with another felony) based on the allegation he pointed the gun at Harris.
- Probation also recommended a 3-level § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility; the district court denied that reduction after finding Sandidge had falsely denied relevant conduct.
- With the enhancement and denial of the reduction, the court calculated an offense level of 24 and a Guidelines range of 92–115 months; it sentenced Sandidge to 92 months, to run consecutively to an undischarged state sentence, plus 2 years supervised release.
- On appeal Sandidge challenged: (1) the 4-level enhancement; (2) denial of the 3-level acceptance reduction; (3) the consecutive (vs. concurrent) imposition of the federal sentence; and (4) several supervised-release conditions as procedurally and substantively improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-level § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement (gun used in connection with another felony) | Sandidge: the government failed to meet its burden because the court relied on unreliable hearsay (Harris’s inconsistent statements); there was no reliable corroboration that he pointed the gun at Harris. | Government/District Court: Harris’s statements contained sufficient indicia of reliability (details, consistency on core facts, corroboration by physical evidence and officers’ observations); preponderance standard met. | Affirmed. Court did not clearly err — hearsay was admissible at sentencing with sufficient indicia of reliability, and the enhancement properly applied. |
| Denial of 3-level § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Sandidge: he accepted responsibility for possession; denial improper because he didn’t point the gun. | District Court: Sandidge falsely denied relevant conduct (pointing the gun), so discretionary denial appropriate. | Affirmed. Because the court did not clearly err in finding he pointed the gun, denial was proper. |
| Consecutive vs. concurrent sentence (imposition to run consecutively to undischarged state term) | Sandidge: district court did not make findings addressing his request for a concurrent sentence — procedural error. | Government/District Court: court considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, rejected defendant’s mitigation argument, and intended its analysis to apply to both length and consecutive imposition. | Affirmed. Court’s discussion of § 3553(a) and timing of ruling adequately show consideration of consecutive imposition; no procedural error requiring reversal. |
| Supervised-release conditions (standard and special conditions, including ban on "mood-altering substances") | Sandidge: court imposed standard and special conditions without evaluating § 3553(a) factors or offering individualized explanation; some conditions are vague/overbroad. | Government/District Court: conditions mirrored PSR and local General Order; no substantive objections at sentencing. | Vacated and remanded. Court failed to evaluate and explain each condition under § 3553(a); several conditions are vague/overbroad and must be redetermined with adequate explanation and precision. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCauley, 659 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing factual findings)
- United States v. Johnson, 765 F.3d 702 (7th Cir.) (preponderance requirement for sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Hankton, 432 F.3d 779 (7th Cir.) (sentencing courts may consider reliable hearsay)
- United States v. Sanchez, 507 F.3d 532 (7th Cir.) (hearsay admissible at sentencing only if indicia of reliability exist)
- United States v. Clark, 538 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.) (district court may credit uncorroborated testimony at sentencing)
- United States v. Nania, 724 F.3d 824 (7th Cir.) (requirements for reviewing consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir.) (district courts must evaluate supervised-release conditions under § 3553(a) and explain individualized basis)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir.) (overbreadth/vagueness concerns for prohibitions on "mood-altering substances")
- United States v. Scott, 316 F.3d 733 (7th Cir.) (need for precise, non-open-ended supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Davila-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir.) (hearsay evidence may be considered at sentencing)