United States v. Samuel Mullet, Sr.
822 F.3d 842
6th Cir.2016Background
- In 2006, a schism in the Bergholz, Ohio Old Order Amish community led to a series of beard-cutting and hair-cutting assaults directed at members who opposed the local bishop, Samuel Mullet, Sr.
- Sixteen Bergholz residents were federally indicted on counts including violations of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. § 249), concealing evidence (18 U.S.C. § 1519), false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371).
- A jury convicted all sixteen on most counts; this court reversed the hate-crimes convictions in an earlier appeal because the jury instruction conflicted with intervening Supreme Court precedent (Miller). The government declined to retry the hate-crimes counts.
- On remand the district court resentenced defendants on the remaining convictions (conspiracy to conceal evidence for all sixteen; concealing the camera for three; one false-statement conviction for Samuel Mullet). Sentences ranged from time served to 129 months; one defendant did not appeal.
- Defendants now raise challenges to the remaining convictions (largely sufficiency and jurisdictional arguments) and to aspects of the resentencings (guideline calculations and enhancements).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants may raise challenges to remaining convictions on second appeal | Defendants seek review of sufficiency and jurisdictional claims not raised in first appeal | Defendants argue Rule 12(b)(2) allows jurisdictional claims at any time and that the Hate Crimes Act’s invalidity taints the prosecutions | Court: Claims forfeited by failure to raise earlier; jurisdictional argument misunderstood — district court had subject-matter jurisdiction; plain-error review fails |
| Whether indictment/prosecutions must be dismissed because Hate Crimes Act exceeded Congressional power | Defendants: If Hate Crimes Act unconstitutional, FCC/ FBI lacked authority and courts lack jurisdiction | Govt: Even if Act invalid, obstruction and false-statement statutes independently support prosecution | Court: Judicial subject-matter jurisdiction exists despite constitutional challenge to statute; prosecutions need not be dismissed |
| Whether conspiracy convictions were negated by reversal of underlying hate-crime convictions | Defendants: Reversal of hate-crime convictions nullifies conspiracy conviction premised on those crimes | Govt: Jury found conspiracy had multiple objects, including concealing evidence; that object remains intact | Court: Conspiracy verdict specifically listed concealment as an object; reversal of hate-crime counts did not vacate conspiracy as to concealment |
| Whether sentencing calculations and enhancements were procedurally/substantively unreasonable | Defendants: Erroneous application of conspiracy/kidnapping guidelines; vulnerable-victim and leadership enhancements; arbitrary mathematical reductions | Govt: District court acted within discretion, relied on verdict form, preponderance for sentencing findings, and individualized resentencing | Court: Sentencing decisions (including cross-references, vulnerable-victim, leadership, and proportional tier reductions) were permissible and sentences were substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. United States, 767 F.3d 585 (6th Cir.) (prior panel decision reversing hate-crimes convictions on instruction error)
- Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) (investigative jurisdiction and obstruction statutes authority)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (judicial review over legislative/executive actions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (limits and meaning of judicial "jurisdiction")
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (effect of reversal of underlying offense on conspiracy conviction)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to district court sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Gray, 16 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 1994) ("unlawful restraint" as broad residual kidnapping concept in Guidelines)
- United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 1995) (limitations on §2A4.1 application where state law showed only minor restraint)
- United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) (preponderance standard for sentencing findings of conduct that does not increase statutory range)