U.S. v. Hamilton, 90-5866
| Decision Date | 08 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5866,90-5866 |
| Citation | 929 F.2d 1126 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Andrew HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert W. Watson, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.
Deborah S. Swettenam, Asst. Federal Public Defender (argued), Nashville, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.
Before MARTIN and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
William Andrew Hamilton pled guilty to assaulting his ex-girlfriend as he drove her from West Palm Beach, Florida to Nashville, Tennessee. He was convicted of knowingly intimidating a witness by hindering her communication with law enforcement officers of a possible commission of a federal offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(b). Hamilton was sentenced to three years and five months imprisonment, three years of supervised release with conditions of restitution, and participation in a mental health program. On appeal, Hamilton argues that the district court erred in imposing a four-level enhancement to his base offense for "otherwise using" a knife, and in imposing a two-level enhancement for a willful obstruction of justice. For the following reasons, we affirm.
The events that led to Hamilton's conviction are as follows: On September 2, 1989, Hamilton persuaded his former girlfriend, Ann Pye, to meet him at the apartment of a mutual friend in West Palm Beach. Shortly after Pye arrived, Hamilton became agitated and began to savagely beat her, striking her repeatedly with his fists. When Pye attempted to call for help, Hamilton choked her to the point of unconsciousness. When Pye awoke Hamilton was holding a knife against her throat, threatening to kill her and her children.
Hamilton temporarily calmed down; after he professed remorse for his outburst, the two left the apartment in Pye's car, with Hamilton at the wheel. Pye testified that she agreed to enter the automobile out of fear of Hamilton. During the drive, Hamilton again beat Pye and threatened her with the knife. Pye was severely cut on the hand when she attempted to fend off Hamilton's attack. Hamilton promised to take Pye to the hospital, but proceeded instead to his mother's home in Nashville. Along the road between Florida and Nashville, Pye made several attempts to contact authorities; these attempts were foiled by Hamilton and third parties who wished not to become involved. Hamilton was arrested at his mother's home in Nashville, Tennessee by F.B.I. agents on September 4, 1989.
A two-count indictment was filed against Hamilton in the Middle District of Tennessee. Count one charged him with kidnapping Pye on or about September 3, 1989, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a). Count two charged him with knowingly using threats, intimidation, and physical force against a witness (Pye), in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(b). On March 26, 1990, Hamilton entered into a plea agreement under which in exchange for pleading guilty to count two of the indictment, count one of the indictment would be dismissed and Hamilton's sentence would be calculated under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 2A2.2, with a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance for responsibility.
A presentence report was prepared by the probation officer providing the mathematical basis for the recommended sentence. To facilitate our review, we have reduced the calculations to the following equation. See Guidelines Manual, Sec. 1B1.1 (Nov.1990) (Application Instructions).
STEP 1: ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL
A. OFFENSE GUIDELINE: Guidelines App.A permits Guidelines Secs. 2A1.2
(Assault With Intent To Commit Murder; Attempted Murder)
2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault), or 2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice)
to apply to violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(b). By stipulation
of the parties, Guidelines Sec. 2A2.2 is to apply
B. BASE OFFENSE LEVEL: The base level offense for Sec. 2A2.2 is 15. 15
C. SPECIFIC OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS: The following specific offense
characteristics for Sec. 2A2.2 were found to apply
1. Dangerous Weapon Otherwise Used: four-level k4
enhancement
2. Bodily Injury To The Victim: three-level k3
enhancement for degree of injury between
"bodily injury" and "serious bodily injury."
3. Total offense characteristic enhancement: seven
levels.
D. Guidelines CHAPTER THREE ADJUSTMENTS:
1. Parts A, B, C, and D of Chapter Three allow
adjustments for particular victims, defendant's
role in the offense, obstruction of justice,
and multiple counts.
a. Victim Related k0
Adjustments: Zero
b. Role In The Offense: Zero k0
c. Obstruction: Zero k0
d. Multiple Counts: Zero k0
2. Part E of Chapter Three allows a two level - 2
downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility for the crime: Minus two levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL: 20(15k7k0-2) 20
STEP 2: CRIMINAL HISTORY
A. Juvenile Adjudications: Zero
B. Prior Sentences: Zero
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Criminal History Points: Zero
D. Criminal History Category: I; (0 or 1 point); Sec. 5.2
STEP 3: GUIDELINE RANGE CALCULATION
A. Adjusted Offense Level: 20
B. Criminal History Category: I
C. Career Offender/Criminal Livelihood: N/A
D. Guideline Range: Sec. 5.2 establishes the guideline range for a
level twenty offense by a criminal history category I offender
as 2 years 9 months to 3 years 5 months (33 to 41 months)
imprisonment.
----------
At the sentencing hearing, Hamilton denied a number of the allegations not included under the plea agreement. He denied that he had tricked Pye into meeting him, that he had forced her to accompany him to Tennessee against her will, or that he had used a weapon. The court rejected these denials, making findings that he had tricked Pye into a meeting, that he had attacked Pye with a knife, although the court notes the evidence does not establish that the defendant intentionally stabbed the victim, and that he had forced Pye to accompany him to Tennessee against her will. The court found Hamilton's denials to be perjurious attempts to minimize his involvement; accordingly, the court ruled a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice was warranted. However, the court also applied a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because of Hamilton's earlier acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
Again, for clarity's sake, we have distilled the district court's Guideline calculation to the following equation:
STEP 1: ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL
A. OFFENSE GUIDELINE: Sec. 2A2.2 (Aggravated Assault).
B. BASE LEVEL OFFENSE: 15 15
C. SPECIFIC OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS:
1. Sec. 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) Dangerous Weapon Otherwise Used: k4
four-level enhancement.
2. Sec. 2A2.2(b)(3)(A) Bodily Injury: two-level k2
enhancement.
3. Total offense characteristic enhancement: six
levels.
D. Guidelines CHAPTER THREE ADJUSTMENTS:
1. Sec. 3A.1.13D.5:
a. Sec. 3A1.1.3 Victim Related k 0
Adjustments; Zero.
b. Sec. 3B1.1.4 Role In The k 0
Offense: Zero
c. Sec. 3C1.1.2 Obstruction: k 2
two-level upward
adjustment.
d. Sec. 3D1.1.5 Multiple Counts: k 0
Zero
2. Sec. 3E1.1 Acceptance of responsibility: two-level - 2
downward adjustment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL: 21(15 k 6 k 2 - 2) 21
STEP 2: CRIMINAL HISTORY
A. Sec. 4A1.2(d) Juvenile Adjudications: Zero
B. Sec. 4A1.1 Prior Sentences: Zero
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Criminal History Points: Zero
D. Sec. 5.2 Criminal History Category: I; (0 or 1 point).
STEP 3: GUIDELINE RANGE CALCULATION
A. Adjusted Offense Level: 21
B. Criminal History Category: I
C. Sec. 4B1.1 Career Offender/Criminal Livelihood: N/A
D. Guideline Range: Sec. 5.2 establishes the guideline range for a
level 21 offense by a criminal history category I offender as
3 years 1 month to three years 10 months (37 to 46 months)
imprisonment.
----------
Hamilton was sentenced to three years and five months imprisonment, with a period of supervised...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Comer
...disturb the district court's underlying factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.2d 1126, 1130 (6th Cir.1991). Furthermore, the court of appeals must "give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines t......
-
U.S. v. Medina
...that a defendant lied. United States v. Burnette, 981 F.2d 874, 878 (6th Cir.1992) (per curiam); see also United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.2d 1126, 1130-31 (6th Cir.1991) (enhancement upheld where district court "made a credibility finding that the defendant 'has told one bare-faced lie aft......
-
U.S. v. Prince
...318, 320 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477, 1481 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.2d 1126, 1130 (6th Cir. 1991)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 858, 117 S.Ct. 158, 136 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when "'......
-
U.S. v. Wilson
...the district court's factual findings in determining a defendant's criminal history category for clear error. See United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.2d 1126, 1130 (6th Cir.1991). The Sentencing Guidelines require the district court to compute a criminal history category by assigning points fo......