United States v. Terry Dean Iceman
821 F.3d 979
8th Cir.2016Background
- Terry Dean Iceman was convicted by a jury of strangulation under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(8) for assaulting his live-in girlfriend; he was acquitted of aggravated sexual abuse.
- The offense occurred July 17–18, 2013 on the Red Lake Indian Reservation; victim suffered neck swelling, bruising, burn holes in clothing, and alleged sexual assault.
- At the time of the offense, the Sentencing Commission had not yet issued a guideline corresponding to strangulation; § 2X5.1 directs courts to apply the most analogous guideline when none exists.
- The district court considered U.S.S.G. § 2A6.2 (Stalking or Domestic Violence) and § 2A2.3 (Minor Assault) and selected § 2A6.2 because the parties were intimate partners; it imposed 41 months’ imprisonment.
- After sentencing but before appeal, the Commission promulgated an Aggravated Assault guideline (corresponding to § 113(a)(8)); the government conceded that new guideline did not apply retroactively to Iceman’s offense.
- Iceman appealed, arguing (1) the Domestic Violence guideline was not the most analogous provision; and (2) application of guidelines effective at sentencing (or functionally the new Aggravated Assault guideline) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Iceman's Argument | Government/District Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2A6.2 (Domestic Violence) is the most analogous guideline under § 2X5.1 | § 2A6.2 is inapplicable because it targets interstate domestic violence statutes; Minor Assault § 2A2.3 is more analogous given injuries | § 2A6.2 is most analogous because it uniquely accounts for intimate-relationship aggravator, an element of § 113(a)(8) | Court affirmed: § 2A6.2 is most analogous; deference to district court’s fact-bound selection |
| Whether sentencing under guidelines effective at sentencing violated Ex Post Facto Clause | District court functionally used the newly promulgated Aggravated Assault guideline (in effect at sentencing) to increase punishment | District court used § 1B1.11(b)(1) logic and explicitly applied § 2A6.2 (in effect at offense date); government conceded new guideline inapplicable retroactively | Court affirmed: no ex post facto violation; record shows Domestic Violence guideline was applied |
| Standard of review for guideline-selection and unpreserved ex post facto claim | N/A (challenge to correctness) | Court: give due deference to district court on analogous-guideline choice; plain-error review for unpreserved ex post facto claim | Court applied deferential review for guideline choice and plain-error for ex post facto; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Allmon, 594 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2010) (deference to district court’s fact-bound choice of most analogous guideline)
- United States v. Osborne, 164 F.3d 434 (8th Cir. 1999) (two-step inquiry for selecting most analogous guideline under § 2X5.1)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (Ex Post Facto Clause bars sentencing under Guidelines that increase applicable range after offense)
- United States v. Melton, 738 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2013) (plain-error standard articulated for unpreserved sentencing claims)