United States v. Naramor
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16623
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Robbie Lynn Naramor pleaded guilty in federal court to mailing threatening communications to a state judge (18 U.S.C. § 876(c)); no plea agreement; sentenced to 60 months (statutory maximum) after an upward variance.
- The district court added two criminal-history points for a prior Oklahoma state assault conviction; Naramor argued that waiver of counsel in that state proceeding was invalid and thus the conviction should not count for §4A1.1(b).
- State-court record: no signed waiver, but minutes show he was told of right to counsel; early competency evaluations (Jan and June 2009) found him competent; later competency issues arose after he sent threatening letters and was treated and restored to competency.
- At federal sentencing the government initially indicated it would move for a one-level §3E1.1(b) acceptance-of-responsibility reduction but later withdrew that motion after a competency evaluation (ordered after Naramor sent another threatening letter) found him then incompetent and he was committed for treatment; he was later restored and found competent.
- The district court denied a downward variance based on mental illness, granted an upward variance to 60 months based on violent history and danger to public, and recommended BOP mental-health evaluation and supervised-release treatment conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Naramor's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of prior state conviction for guidelines (§4A1.1(b)) | Waiver of counsel at state trial was not knowing/voluntary due to lack of formal waiver, competency concerns, and allegedly burdensome appointment process | Presumption of regularity; record did not show affirmative evidence of involuntary waiver; competency evaluations near trial found him competent | District court did not clearly err in counting the prior conviction; Naramor failed to prove constitutional infirmity |
| Withdrawal of §3E1.1(b) motion by government | Withdrawal violated due process because Naramor was incompetent when he sent the later threatening letter | Prosecutor has broad discretion; withdrawal was rationally related to legitimate ends (doubts about acceptance of responsibility) and not motivated by unconstitutional factors | Withdrawal upheld—no clear error; government action was rationally related to legitimate ends |
| Tapia claim (improperly lengthening sentence to provide rehabilitation) | Court lengthened custody to secure mental-health treatment, violating Tapia (cannot impose/lengthen imprisonment to promote rehabilitation) | Court considered rehabilitation where appropriate (recommendations, supervised-release conditions) but did not tie length of imprisonment to treatment need; upward variance based on danger, punishment, deterrence | No Tapia error: record shows sentence length tied to public protection and other legitimate §3553(a) factors, not rehabilitation |
| Substantive reasonableness of 60-month sentence | Sentence excessive given single prior assault, mental illness, diminished capacity, comparative sentences, and limited deterrence/protection value | Defendant’s documented history of violence, inability to control anger, noncompliance with medication, and danger to public justify upward variance | Sentence was not substantively unreasonable under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cruz-Alcala, 338 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) (defendant must prove prior conviction was constitutionally infirm to overcome presumption of regularity)
- United States v. Krejcarek, 453 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2006) (clear-error review of district court findings on knowing waiver of counsel in prior proceeding)
- United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011) (view evidence most favorably to district court when reviewing waiver findings)
- United States v. Moreno-Trevino, 432 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2005) (limits on court reviewing prosecutor’s refusal to move for acceptance-of-responsibility reduction)
- United States v. Blanco, 466 F.3d 916 (10th Cir. 2006) (prosecutorial decisions require showing of constitutionally impermissible motive to be overturned)
- United States v. Jackson, 493 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007) (prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions may be counted in federal sentencing in some circumstances)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (sentencing court may not impose or lengthen imprisonment to promote rehabilitation)