United States v. Ketut Pujayasa
703 F. App'x 817
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ketut Pujayasa pleaded guilty to attempted murder (18 U.S.C. § 1113) and aggravated sexual abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1)).
- After remand and resentencing the district court imposed a 365-month sentence within the advisory Guidelines range following an upward departure totaling five levels.
- The court granted a two-level upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3 for extreme psychological injury based on a victim impact statement and a board-certified psychologist’s letter diagnosing PTSD, major depressive disorder, and cognitive disorder and describing marked life changes.
- The court granted a three-level upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.8 for extreme conduct based on violent facts: attacking a sleeping victim, repeated strangulation attempts, beatings with blunt objects, attempting to throw the victim overboard, attempted rape, and forced anal penetration.
- Pujayasa argued the departures were an abuse of discretion, that the court procedurally erred by not adequately considering his post-sentencing rehabilitation, and that his overall sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Pujayasa's Argument | Government/District Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 5K2.3 departure for extreme psychological injury was warranted | Departure was unwarranted; guidelines already account for injury | Victim suffered substantial, long-term impairment supported by psychologist and victim statement | Affirmed: two-level § 5K2.3 departure justified |
| Whether a § 5K2.8 departure for extreme conduct was warranted | Departure was an abuse of discretion; enhancements already covered conduct | Conduct was unusually heinous, beyond pre-departure enhancements, justifying § 5K2.8 departure | Affirmed: three-level § 5K2.8 departure justified |
| Whether the court procedurally erred by failing to consider post-sentencing rehabilitation | Court failed to meaningfully consider rehabilitation evidence | Court reviewed rehabilitation evidence and stated it considered parties’ statements and § 3553(a) factors | No procedural error: court considered but reasonably discounted rehabilitation |
| Whether the overall 365-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Sentence is greater than necessary given mitigating factors and rehabilitation | Court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing seriousness, deterrence, and punishment | Sentence substantively reasonable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flanders, 752 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (standard of abuse-of-discretion review for departures)
- United States v. Omar, 16 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir.) (three-step analysis for guideline departures)
- United States v. Sawyer, 180 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (upholding § 5K2.3 departure where victim altered daily life)
- United States v. Price, 65 F.3d 903 (11th Cir.) (upholding § 5K2.3 where victim suffered depression and lifestyle change)
- United States v. Lewis, 115 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir.) (recognizing forced oral and anal sex as especially degrading under § 5K2.8)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (post-sentencing rehabilitation may be considered on resentencing)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.) (substantive-reasonableness review and "definite and firm conviction" standard)