United States v. Rory Alan Mitchell
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10343
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rory Alan Mitchell pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery; plea agreement stated a December 10 demand note mentioned a gun, but Mitchell denied that in court.
- The PSR recommended a two-level USSG § 2B3.1 enhancement for a threat of death based on the alleged gun mention; with enhancement offense level 26 (Guidelines 78–97 months).
- Without the enhancement (as the parties had agreed), offense level would be 25 (Guidelines 70–87 months); after the court granted the government an upward departure under USSG § 4A1.3 to CHC IV, the corrected range would be 84–105 months.
- The district court overruled Mitchell’s objection to the § 2B3.1 enhancement despite the government not proving the fact and agreeing the enhancement should not apply, and granted the government an upward departure to CHC IV.
- The district court imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 151 months, explaining it was justified by § 3553(a) factors and that only unusual timing-related technicalities prevented treating Mitchell as a career offender.
- On appeal Mitchell challenged (1) the procedural error applying the threat-of-death enhancement, and (2) the substantive reasonableness of the 151-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred procedurally by applying a two-level § 2B3.1 threat-of-death enhancement despite Mitchell’s dispute | Mitchell: court erred; government failed to prove the factual basis and an evidentiary hearing was required | Government/district court: relied on written plea agreement admission to apply enhancement | Court: Error — enhancement was applied without proof and contrary to parties’ position, so procedural error occurred but was harmless |
| Whether the procedural error affected the sentence (harmlessness) | Mitchell: erroneous enhancement infected the sentence | Government: sentence was based on § 3553(a) factors and career-offender considerations, not the enhancement | Court: Harmless — sentenced to 151 months based on reasons unrelated to the erroneous finding (career-offender rationale) |
| Whether the 151-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Mitchell: sentence is greater than necessary and unreasonable | Government/district court: above-Guidelines sentence justified by seriousness, deterrence, recidivism risk, and avoiding disparities | Court: Not unreasonable — district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the government needed to present evidence when defendant disputes PSR facts | Mitchell: gov’t bore burden to prove enhancement facts by preponderance | Government: (in practice) conceded enhancement should not apply | Court: Confirms precedent that government must prove disputed PSR facts; failure here was error though ultimately harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scott, 448 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of Guidelines application where no factual disputes remain)
- United States v. Cochrane, 608 F.3d 382 (8th Cir. 2010) (government bears burden to prove sentencing-enhancement facts by a preponderance)
- United States v. Poor Bear, 359 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2004) (error to apply enhancement when government fails to meet proof burden after defendant’s objection)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (incorrect Guidelines calculation is harmless if sentence was not imposed as a result of that error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review standards for above-Guidelines sentences; district court must consider § 3553(a) and appellate deference applies)