United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Kimberly A. Svendsen, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, for Plaintiff.
Paul Applebaum, Applebaum Law Firm, First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1610, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, for Defendant.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.
This matter came before the undersigned United States District Judge on Defendant's Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 41] and Defendant's Motion to Extend Prison Turn-In Date [Doc. No. 42]. Defendant seeks an order striking a portion of his Presentence Report and extending his prison turn-in date by three weeks. (See Def.'s Mot. to Strike [Doc. No. 41], at 1; Def.'s Mot. to Extend Prison Turn-In Date [Doc. No. 42] ("Mot. to Extend"), at 1.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motions are denied.
Defendant pled guilty to wire fraud on April 1, 2014. (See Information [Doc. No. 12], at 3-4; Tr. of Apr. 1, 204 Change of Plea Hr'g [Doc. No. 21], at 12-13, 30.) Counsel for the parties received a copy of the draft Presentence Report on May 19, 2014, and Defendant's proposed amendments were incorporated into the final copy. (See Addendum to the Presentence Report.) Paragraph 47 of the final copy of the Presentence Report ("PSR") contains the following statement relating to a 2012 DWI conviction: "Witnesses advised that the defendant punched another person in the face or head, causing the other person to fall backwards and hit their head on the concrete."
On July 3, the Government filed its Position With Respect to Sentencing, in which it noted that, in the PSR, "[Defendant] obtained a criminal history category of IV mostly through a series of aggravated drunk driving offenses, some of which involved assault." (Govt.'s Position With Respect to Sentencing [Doc. No. 27], at 4.) On August 11, Defendant filed his Position Regarding Sentencing. Defendant argued that the PSR "substantially over-represents the seriousness of his criminal past, " (Def.'s Position Regarding Sentencing [Doc. No. 30], at 1), and he characterized the matters for which he received criminal history points-including the 2012 DWI conviction-as "relatively minor offenses, which occurred seven years or more in the past, " (id. at 3).
Defendant's sentencing hearing was held on August 14. At the outset of the hearing, the Court confirmed that Defendant's counsel had received a copy of the PSR and Addendum and had a chance to review them with Defendant, and that Defendant had no objections. (See Tr. of Aug. 14, 2014 Sentencing Hr'g [Doc. No. 38], at 2-3.) Because the Government also did not have any objections, the Court adopted the factual statements in the PSR as its findings of fact. (Id. at 3.) Defendant's counsel then argued for a downward departure and variance under the Sentencing Guidelines, noting that:
The points that [Defendant] has accrued before he was indicted in this case are all misdemeanor State Court cases. And not to minimize breaking the law at the misdemeanor level in State Court, but I believe they push him into a guideline range or into a criminal history range that far exceeds the actual criminal behavior and distorts his criminal history score. I think it's also interesting to note that the-all of the offenses-none of them are theft offenses or any situation involving dishonesty but they're all an organic product of his chemical dependency. They're all alcohol-related crimes.
(Id. at 4-5.) In response, the Government argued:
And indeed, with his assessment that his criminal history is overrepresented, these are not just driving offenses, although if the Court looks at the names of some of the offenses, they might appear to be at first. I know the Court has taken a look at the facts of those prior offenses and seen that there's some violent conduct associated with them, including a DWI in which the Defendant punched a person in the face....
(Id. at 23.) Defendant's counsel then pointed out that, in that matter, Defendant was not convicted of assault or required to admit to an assault. (Id. at 30.) At the conclusion of the hearing, Defendant's counsel again referred to the PSR, this time in conjunction with his concern that any reference to "handguns or weapons"-if there was one that he had overlooked-be stricken so that it would not affect the "security calculation." (Id. at 41.)
After hearing the parties' arguments, the Court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for a term of 120 months and ordered Defendant to pay restitution. (Id. at 31.) The Court stated that it would "recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that [Defendant] be designated to a facility in Minnesota or as close to Minnesota as possible, " but noted that the Court has no control over the Bureau of Prisons' decision. (Id. at 34.) The Court then ordered Defendant to self-surrender for service of his sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons by 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 11. ...