United States v. Robert Rae Ramirez
376 F.3d 785
8th Cir.
2004
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 that Neumann Here, undisputed it is (MHRA disability discrimi- (D.Minn.2001) bene- compensation it awarded workers’ was because “flatly preempted” claim nation AT T. at & injury she suffered which fits for injuries for work on based was claim on discrimina- work- bases her MHRA and received She “already filed plaintiff out of and after benefits”); allegedly that arose Braziel tion compensation ers’ Inc., 943 she received workers’ Way, injury for which Maintenance Loram (D.Minn.1996) Accordingly, benefits. compensation 1102 n. 20 F.Supp. court genuine a is- the district (even inapposite, had raised Hunter is plaintiff if Neu- his status Karst bars concerning correctly concluded that fact of material sue disability, the MHRA. with a claim under individual mann’s qualified aas under would fail disability claim state-law & '1» Airlines, Karst); v. Northwest Benson reasons, the district foregoing For the (Minn.Ct.App. Inc., N.W.2d by refusing to remand not err court did however, 1997) (“In case, the same to state original complaint Neumann’s of Benson’s aggravation disability —the summary judgment court, by granting for the basis condition—formed shoulder AT T Gates McDonald in favor of & and and workers’ claim his discrimination both ERISA, on based on Neumann’s claims Therefore, Karst is claims. compensation Although these the MHRA. estoppel, and from Benson precludes controlling failed, sick- did receive claims Neumann disability discrimination bringing a MHRA compensation benefits and workers’ ness claim[.]”). to opportunity year, and she had for claim court her in Minnesota state press its Karst and argues that Neumann 176.82, alleging subd. under Minn.Stat. claim, be- her do not foreclose progeny employment. refusal to offer continued Hunter v. analogous to her case is cause af- court is judgment The of the district (Minn.Ct. Co., Finch 498 N.W.2d Nash firmed. Hunter, plaintiff lost App.1993). working hand while fingers of his left

two years prior employer eight

for Finch. work- at Nash While

starting work Finch, carpal acquired at Nash Hunter

ing hand, under- right syndrome his tunnel America, STATES UNITED surgery, and re- tunnel relief carpal went Appellee, compensation benefits. workers’ ceived Appeals held Minnesota Court of The RAMIREZ, Appellant. disability Rae a viable claim Robert had Hunter based his claim was discrimination No. 03-3324. as a encountered that he discrimination on Appeals, United States Court hand, injury to his left of the earlier result Eighth Circuit. which right hand for injury to his not compensation bene- workers’ received he 9, 2004. March Submitted: Thus, at 762. Finch. Id. from Nash fits July Filed: claim did not disability discrimination En Banc Rehearing Rehearing and Hunter was which any injury relate 1, 2004. Sept. Denied compensation benefits workers’ receiving em- injury suffered while on an based company. Id. by the defendant

ployed *2 Nadler, N. argued, Rapids,

David Cedar IA, appellant. Cole, argued,

Matthew J. Asst. U.S. IA, Atty., Rapids, appellee. Cedar MURPHY, HEANEY, Before SMITH, Judges. Circuit SMITH, Judge. pleaded

Robert guilty Rae Ramirez one count of an him charging indictment manufacturing with two counts of metham- phetamine. years He was nineteen old at the time of his arrest and manufac- had methamphetamine help tured with the sentencing, several minors. At he re- ceived a two-level enhancement for using a minor the offense. This his brought offense level to with a history criminal category of I. The district court1 sen- ninety-three tenced Ramirez to months’ imprisonment years and four supervised appeal, release. On Ramirez argues that only because he was nineteen old at of sentencing subject time he was not upward adjustment to an for his use of minors to commit a crime. We affirm. I.

Ramirez contends that Commission authority exceeded its in its decision to U.S.S.G. 3B1.4 to those twenty-one. under the He relies on concurring opinion the Sixth Circuit’s Butler, United States v. 207 F.3d 839 support argument. decision to his case, In that divided held that § 3B1.4 was invalid to the extent that it applied to criminals who committed their when twenty-one. crimes under the However, Fourth, Id. at 849-52. Sev- enth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits have Reade, 1. The Honorable Linda R. United of Iowa. Judge States District for the Northern District if involved a States v. hancement the defendant United otherwise. concluded of the offense. minor the commission 853, 855-58 Cir. Ramsey, 237 F.3d McClain, 2001); 103-322, Pub.L. 108 Stat. (11th Cir.2001); United response *3 511, Murphy, 254 F.3d v. States promulgated Sentencing Commission Kravchuk, v. States (4th Cir.2001); United 3B1.4, § states: U.S.S.G. which Cir.2003). 1147 F.3d 335 a Using a Minor to Commit Crime attempted If or to the defendant used with a clear presented areWe eighteen years less than person use a whether in its and must decide split circuit in age to commit the offense or assist eighteen applied § to passage of 3B1.4-as of, avoiding apprehension detection Sentencing nineteen-year olds-the offense, for, by 2 levels. the increase At the abused its discretion. Commission commentary accompanying application The outset, en note that “the Commission this Guideline states: formulating in discretion joys significant the di- implements This amendment States, v. United Mistretta Guidelines.” in of the Violent rective Section 140008 647, 361, 377, 102 109 S.Ct. 488 U.S. and Law Enforcement Crime Control (1989). And our circuit 714 L.Ed.2d of a (pertaining Act of 1994 to the use broad affords the Commission particular offense) of an minor the commission delegated legislatively within its discretion adding a slightly by in a broader form supervisory authority. Congress’s “Given to (Using § 3B1.4 a Minor Commit new formu role, Sentencing Commission’s the Crime). subject not to is lation of the Guidelines 527 Thus- U.S.S.G.App. C Amend. unless the Commission judicial review acknowledges-by elim- commentary as this bounds.” United oversteps constitutional inating age the restriction the Commission Vincent, F.3d 431 167 Congressional scope the of the widened Hill, States v. 48 (citing The in its enactment of 3B1.4. directive (When (7th Cir.1995)) the Com 228 F.3d face is whether the Commission’s issue we delegated pow “exercising this mission is compatible is with “slightly broader form” er, or second- courts cannot interfere the directive. congressional its oversteps guess unless the Commission found that elimi- The Sixth Circuit bounds.”). constitutional restriction, “was age the 3B1.4 nating the directed Com- Congress specifically explicit Congres- overruling of direct provide to mission to amend the Guidelines Butler, at sional declaration.” for defendants who for enhanced sentences (Jones, J., Because the concurring). 850 of their minors in the commission involve follow the precisely did not Commission The Violent Crime Control offenses. court specific congressional 1994, in pertinent Act of Law Enforcement See id. the Guideline. declined provides: part, in its sub- government, The at 849-52. Butler, (a) to the missions Sixth Sentencing to the Commis- Directive age (1) removal of contended that The United States sion. reasonable because limitation was promulgate guidelines shall Commission “ Con- simply ‘implemented Commission existing guidelines provide or amend slightly in a broader gress’s directive 21 or older that a defendant Butler, F.3d an offense fashion.’” convicted of who has been J., (Jones, concurring). The Sixth Circuit en- appropriate receive an sentence shall egory and ulti of defendants to whom an enhance argument “feeble” found this LaBonte, apply”) (quoting ment will Id. at 850-851. mately unpersuasive. 1673). 757, 117 at “reflexively U.S. S.Ct. relying First, they found characterization of its on the commission’s Additionally, as noted the Seventh judi abandon our would own amendment Circuit, considering after the relevance of determining whether ‘in cial role enhancement,2 perhaps to this accurately reflects Con [the][a]mendment “concluded that a nineteen Commission ” (quoting at 850 Id. Unit gress’ intent.’ year much influ- old defendant exerts as LaBonte, 751, 757, 520 U.S. ed States ence over the minors he recruits as does a (1997)). 137 L.Ed.2d 117 S.Ct. defendant, twenty-one year old with the *4 Second, they found that “the limit was potential equal to cause an amount of Id. at 851. aspect of directive.” th[e] core categories harm. The two of defendants equal punishment.”

would thus deserve however, We, differing take a view Ramsey, 237 F.3d at 857. Section 3B1.4 by reasoning expressed the the adopt and age makes the offender’s irrelevant v. Mur Fourth United States Circuit so, it sentencing purposes. doing (2001). by As noted our phy, 254 F.3d 511 inconsistency in sentencing avoids be- circuit, resulting pro the Guideline sister drug of- tween offenders sentenced Commission comports mulgated by the § fenses under U.S.C. 861 and those directive, because all Congress’s with de charged drug with other who re- offenses years age of twenty-one fendants or older ceive enhanced sentences under who use a minor to commit an offense 2D1.2(a)(l) § of the Guidelines. Id. at receive a sentence enhancement. It that Sentencing is our view the Com- language Congress’s no There is scope mission did not exceed the of its limiting only directive the enhancement delegated authority promulgated when it age twenty- the of having those attained defendants, § regard- 3B1.4 to include all mandate, limiting one. Id. Absent such a age. Accordingly, join less of directive, § 3B1.4 “is not at odds with the Fourth, Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Cir- and the within its discre Commission was § in holding cuits that 3B1.4 is not “at category tion to broaden the of adult de Congress’s odds” with directive.3 eligible fendants for the sentence enhance Accordingly, we affirm the sentence im- Id; ment.” see also United States v. posed the district court. (7th Cir.2001) Ramsey, 237 F.3d (upholding validity §of 3B1.4 and ex HEANEY, Judge, concurring. Circuit plaining long that “[a]s as Commis guideline sion’s is not ‘at odds’ with the I the Sentencing believe Commission ex- congressional authority by it is within the ceeded its applying USSG § enlarge commission’s discretion to the cat- 3B1.4 to defendants than twenty- less enhancement, Congress addressing 2. As to this directed this same issue. See United States possible the Commissibn to consider the rele- (2004). Wingate, v. 369 F.3d 1028 Our con- proximity vance of the between the clusion in the current matter is consistent minor(s) offender and the involved in the of- Wingate panel. with the decision of the When fense. Violent Crime Control and Law En- together, opinions thoroughly read the two 103-322, forcement Act of Pub.L. No. position scope address court’s on the 140008(b)(4), 108 Stat. 1796 delegated Commission's au- thority in relation to 3B1.4. 2, 2004, 3. We note on June that Eighth opinion handed down an Congress direct- one only apply should the enhancement

ed that recog- twenty-one and over. As those Circuit, Congress

nized Seventh rejected a directive that

considered to all defen- apply the enhancement

would over, settling instead eighteen

dants only to those that would

on one States

twenty-one and over. See United Cir.

Ramsey, F.3d

2001) history legislative (reviewing the of the Violent Crime portions

relevant Act of and Law Enforcement

Control however,

1994). our recognize, I that the recently decided Com-

court has authority to promul- within its

mission was See it is. enhancement as

gate the Wingate, F.3d 1028 Cir.

2004) eigh- argument of the (rejecting year old defendant USSG

teen him inapplicable to

§ 3B1.4 was twenty-one). Unless

he was under panel is reconsidered

decision banc, are bound it. court en

our Hutman, (recognizing one may circuit not overrule

of the law). I reluc- change in the thus

absent

tantly concur. America, STATES of

UNITED

Appellee, HURT,

Timothy Appellant. Warner

No. 03-2741. Appeals, Court of

United States

Eighth Circuit. 9, 2004.

Submitted: Feb. July

Filed: 2004. En Banc

Rehearing Rehearing Aug.

Denied