United States v. Velnita Hairy Chin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3917
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Velnita Hairy Chin, a Standing Rock Sioux Tribe member, pleaded guilty to one count of child abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and S.D. Codified Laws § 26-10-1 for injuring an infant found strapped in a car seat; infant had abrasions, bruising, diaper rash, ear infection, and distress from prolonged crying.
- At arrest, seven children under 12 were found unattended; Hairy Chin was found intoxicated in the basement. CPS had previously placed four grandchildren with her and she had recently completed supervised release after a 2012 federal child-abuse conviction.
- Hairy Chin’s record includes numerous state, federal, and over 40 tribal convictions (child neglect, DUI, assault, etc.), some not counted in the PSR.
- PSR recommended total offense level 6 and criminal history category II (range 1–7 months); Hairy Chin objected to a PSR two-level increase for victim bodily injury under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.3(b)(1)(A).
- The district court granted the government’s request for an upward departure: adopted offense level 6 (including the two-level increase), raised offense level to 12 under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21 for dismissed counts, and placed Hairy Chin in criminal history category VI under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, producing a 30–37 month range and a 37-month sentence.
- Hairy Chin appealed, arguing the court failed to rule on her PSR objection (Rule 32(i)(3)(B)) and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to rule on Hairy Chin’s objection to the PSR two-level bodily-injury enhancement | Hairy Chin: court violated Rule 32(i)(3)(B) by blanket overruling and not specifically resolving the objection | Government/District Court: record contained testimony and photographic evidence supporting the bodily-injury finding; the court effectively resolved the issue on the record | No procedural error; sufficient reliable evidence in the record allowed meaningful review despite lack of explicit ruling |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by using tribal convictions to increase criminal-history category | Hairy Chin: court should have been consistent with 2012 sentencing and not count tribal convictions again | Government: tribal convictions are relevant and reflect repeated child-abuse conduct warranting higher category | No abuse of discretion; counting tribal convictions and raising category was reasonable |
| Whether the district court improperly considered third-party failures (CPS, tribal court) in sentencing | Hairy Chin: court’s remarks show it punished her based on others’ failures | Government: district court’s comments reflected frustration but sentencing was individualized on defendant’s conduct | No; record shows sentencing based on defendant-specific history and conduct, not improper reliance on third-party failings |
| Whether final 37-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Hairy Chin: sentence excessive given disputed facts and alleged mitigating post-2012 conduct | Government: repeat offense and serious history justify within-Guidelines high-end sentence | No; sentence was within Guidelines and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Fischer, 551 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (two-step framework for reviewing sentences)
- United States v. Fetlow, 21 F.3d 243 (8th Cir. 1994) (remand required where court’s basis for overruling PSR objections is unclear and evidence reliability is uncertain)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard and deference to defendant-specific sentencing determinations)
- United States v. Barker, 556 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for factual findings and guidelines application)