U.S. v. Martinez, 00-1653MN
| Decision Date | 29 November 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1653MN,00-1653MN |
| Citation | 234 F.3d 1047 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) United States of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey Brian Martinez, Appellant. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Brian Martinez pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit bank larceny from automatic teller machines (ATMs), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 2113(b), and bank larceny from an ATM, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 and 2113(b). The presentence report recommended assessing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement and denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, because, although Martinez had been cooperative throughout the interview process, he subsequently failed alcohol and drug tests while under court-ordered supervision at a halfway house, he absconded. from the halfway house prior to a bond-revocation hearing, and he failed to appear for the hearing. Over his objection at sentencing, the District Court 1 denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and applied an enhancement for obstruction of justice. Martinez was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 5 years and 5 years 11 months, plus 3 years supervised release. He appeals, arguing the Court erred as to the enhancement and reduction, because they were based on the same misconduct and were not directly linked to the ATM offenses. He also contends the Court erred by not analyzing his case to determine whether it was "extraordinary."
We review for clear error the District Court's findings with respect to the obstruction-of-justice enhancement and the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See United States v. Baker, 200 F.3d 558, 562 (8th Cir. 2000) (); United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (). Having done so, we find no error in light of Martinez's pre-sentencing misbehavior. See U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(e)) (obstruction enhancement applies to escaping from custody before sentencing, and willful failure to appear for judicial proceeding); U.S.S.G. 3E1.1, comment. (n.4) (conduct supporting obstruction enhancement ordinarily indicates defendant should not receive acceptance reduction; however, in "extraordinary cases . . . adjustments under both 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may apply"); United States v. Honken, 184...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. K.R.A., 02-1322.
...reduction and imposition of enhancement), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 2108, 155 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2003); United States v. Martinez, 234 F.3d 1047, 1047-48 (8th Cir.2000) (absconding from halfway house and using drugs and alcohol while on pretrial release justifies denial of reduction ......
-
U.S. v. Peters, 04-2081.
...States v. Muro, 357 F.3d 743, 744 (8th Cir.2004); United States v. Young, 315 F.3d 911, 913 (8th Cir.2003); United States v. Martinez, 234 F.3d 1047, 1048 (8th Cir.2000); United States v. Bell, 183 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir.1999); United States v. Eagle, 133 F.3d 608 (8th Cir.1998); United Sta......
-
U.S. v. Young
...that the District Court applied. We review the District Court's imposition of the enhancement for clear error. United States v. Martinez, 234 F.3d 1047, 1048 (8th Cir.2000). Section 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) provides for a two-level increase in a defendant'......
-
United States v. Nichols, 19-3685
...an obstruction-of-justice enhancement when a defendant absconded from a halfway house before sentencing); United States v. Martinez, 234 F.3d 1047, 1048 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (same). Nichols recognizes that this line of authority exists, but she argues that the district court should ......