United States v. Michael Pauckert
671 F. App'x 533
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Pauckert was sentenced to 144 months for possession of a firearm, an explosive device, and materials to make fraudulent IDs; this is his second appeal.
- At sentencing the parties had stipulated to Pauckert’s base offense level under the Guidelines; Pauckert did not object to that calculation at either the original sentencing or the resentencing.
- The district court found aggravating facts: a shaved pipe bomb with attached shrapnel aimed to kill, internet searches for the parole officer’s address, and “rape kits”/“go bags” (mask, condoms, flex ties) suggesting preparation for more serious crimes.
- The district court imposed 144 months, explaining at length that § 3553(a) factors (nature of the offenses, criminal history, public safety) justified the sentence and stating it would impose the same sentence even if the Guidelines range were different.
- Pauckert appealed, arguing (1) procedural error in Guidelines calculation, (2) violation of the prior mandate by considering improper factors, (3) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence, and (4) requested reassignment to a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pauckert) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error: Guidelines miscalculation | District court miscalculated base offense level and should have recalculated despite stipulation | Parties stipulated to base level; court not required to re-calc; court also explained it would impose same sentence | No plain error; defendant failed to show reasonable probability of a different sentence |
| Scope of mandate: improper factors in § 3553 analysis | Court violated mandate by considering Pauckert’s intentions (e.g., targeting, rape) | Prior mandate addressed Guidelines-calculation error only; § 3553(a) considerations were permissible | No mandate violation; district court lawfully considered § 3553 factors |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | 144 months is greater than necessary | Aggravating facts supported the sentence as sufficient but not greater than necessary | Sentence was substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Judicial reassignment request | Pauckert sought reassignment to another judge | Government argued no basis for reassignment | Request denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must correctly calculate Guidelines and use them as a starting point; abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain-error framework for unpreserved Guidelines calculation errors and requirement to show reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- United States v. Guzman-Mata, 579 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review standard in Ninth Circuit)
- United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2011) (a statement that a court would impose the same sentence regardless of Guidelines does not automatically avoid remand)