United States v. Replogle
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 497
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Replogle pled guilty to production of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
- PSR recommended two-level upward adjustments for obstruction of justice (§ 3C1.1) and for knowledge of a vulnerable victim (§ 3A1.1(b)(1)).
- Replogle objected in writing to the PSR’s factual support and its guideline applications; but at sentencing his counsel stated no objections to the PSR's factual statements.
- The district court adopted the PSR’s factual findings after Replogle’s counsel withdrew objection statements, and then addressed the guidelines arguments.
- The court identified alternative grounds for obstruction of justice based on Replogle’s conduct at the sentencing hearing and the victim’s vulnerability, and sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment.
- Total offense level 42, criminal history I; advisory range 360 months’ to life; sentence at bottom of range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obstruction of justice was properly applied | Replogle argued PSR facts unproven and his conduct was caused by mental illness. | Replogle contends the PSR facts underpinning § 3C1.1 were not proved. | Yes; court properly relied on PSR facts and applied § 3C1.1. |
| Whether knowledge of a vulnerable victim adjustment was proper | PSR facts showed vulnerability and Replogle knew or should have known. | Arguments relied on PSR and post-PSR statements; insufficient basis. | Yes; victim vulnerability supported by records and Replogle’s statements corroborated it. |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable | Sentence lacked adequate explanation and overemphasized symptoms of mental illness. | District court properly explained rationale and imposed within advisory range. | Yes; sentence adequately explained and is within the presumptively reasonable range. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Poor Bear, 359 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2004) (government must prove PSR facts by preponderance if defendant objects to factual assertions)
- United States v. Bledsoe, 445 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006) (adopt factual statements in PSR when no timely objection)
- United States v. White, 447 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2006) (written objections withdrawn when court adopts PSR facts)
- United States v. Griffin, 482 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review: de novo for legal, clear error for facts)
- United States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2006) (obstruction of justice by influencing witness supports § 3C1.1)
- United States v. Anderson, 560 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2009) (conduct at issue can support obstruction of justice)
- United States v. Azure, 596 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (evidence rules at sentencing: reliability standard for information)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (careful consideration of sentencing within advisory range, deferential review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- Struzik v. United States, 572 F.3d 484 (8th Cir. 2009) (adequate explanation supports not abusive discretion)
- United States v. Janis, 71 F.3d 308 (8th Cir. 1995) (victim vulnerability—factual findings reviewed for clear error)