Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    United States v. Victor Grant Goodluck, JR., 103 F.3d 145, 10th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States appealed the downward departure in sentencing of Victor Goodluck Jr. for arson on an Indian reservation. The district court found that the sentencing guidelines exaggerated Goodluck's conduct and culpability given that he set small fires while intoxicated to keep warm that got out of control, rather than deliberately setting the building on fire. The appellate court deferred to the district court's discretion and finding that this case fell outside the heartland of typical arson cases. It affirmed the downward departure, noting the atypical circumstances of the offense and that the district court properly considered Goodluck's individual circumstances and combat service.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Victor Grant Goodluck, JR., 103 F.3d 145, 10th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views3 pages
    The United States appealed the downward departure in sentencing of Victor Goodluck Jr. for arson on an Indian reservation. The district court found that the sentencing guidelines exaggerated Goodluck's conduct and culpability given that he set small fires while intoxicated to keep warm that got out of control, rather than deliberately setting the building on fire. The appellate court deferred to the district court's discretion and finding that this case fell outside the heartland of typical arson cases. It affirmed the downward departure, noting the atypical circumstances of the offense and that the district court properly considered Goodluck's individual circumstances and combat service.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-12-06 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 103 F.3d 145 Docket: 95-2099

    Original Title

    United States v. Victor Grant Goodluck, Jr., 103 F.3d 145, 10th Cir. (1996)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States appealed the downward departure in sentencing of Victor Goodluck Jr. for arson on an Indian reservation. The district court found that the sentencing guidelines exaggerated Goodluck's conduct and culpability given that he set small fires while intoxicated to keep warm that got out of control, rather than deliberately setting the building on fire. The appellate court deferred to the district court's discretion and finding that this case fell outside the heartland of typical arson cases. It affirmed the downward departure, noting the atypical circumstances of the offense and that the district court properly considered Goodluck's individual circumstances and combat service.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    27 views3 pages

    United States v. Victor Grant Goodluck, JR., 103 F.3d 145, 10th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States appealed the downward departure in sentencing of Victor Goodluck Jr. for arson on an Indian reservation. The district court found that the sentencing guidelines exaggerated Goodluck's conduct and culpability given that he set small fires while intoxicated to keep warm that got out of control, rather than deliberately setting the building on fire. The appellate court deferred to the district court's discretion and finding that this case fell outside the heartland of typical arson cases. It affirmed the downward departure, noting the atypical circumstances of the offense and that the district court properly considered Goodluck's individual circumstances and combat service.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    103 F.

    3d 145
    96 CJ C.A.R. 2001
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Victor Grant GOODLUCK, Jr. Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 95-2099.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    Dec. 6, 1996.
    1

    Before ANDERSON, McWILLIAMS and WEIS,** Circuit Judges.

    2ORDER AND JUDGMENT*


    3

    Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging that he committed arson on


    an Indian reservation. The district court granted a downward departure and
    sentenced defendant to six months imprisonment, three years supervised
    release, nine months community service, and restitution of $3,600.

    In granting a downward departure, the district judge stated that the sentencing
    guidelines' base offense level for arson exaggerated the defendant's conduct and
    culpability. The court also took into account the defendant's military service
    during the Gulf War.

    The record supports the district court's view that this case did not present a
    "typical" arson offense. On the night of February 5, 1993, defendant and a
    companion, while intoxicated, went into a large warehouse-type building on the
    reservation. They lit pieces of paper in order to illuminate their steps and started
    small fires in separate corners of the building to keep warm. The fires went out
    of control. Due in part to the flammable nature of some of the materials stored
    in the building, and the lack of usable firefighting equipment on the

    reservation, the building was a total loss.


    6

    There is no evidence that defendant or his companion intended to burn the


    building. Rather, the record shows that in their intoxicated state, they were at
    least careless, and perhaps reckless, in setting open fires within the building to
    keep warm. Their conduct was far removed from a "typical" arson where a
    building is deliberately set afire to collect insurance proceeds, or where the
    arson occurs as an act of revenge, during a riot, to conceal an earlier crime, or
    in similar scenarios.

    In Koon v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2046, (1996), the
    Supreme Court explained that "[a] district court's decision to depart from the
    Guidelines ... will in most cases be due substantial deference, for it embodies
    the traditional exercise of discretion by a sentencing court." We agree that on
    the record before us, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining
    that the offense at issue here fell outside the "heartland" of the guidelines. See
    U.S.S.G. ch.1, pt. A, intro comment. 4(b) (atypical cases outside of "heartland"
    may warrant departure).

    The district court also cited the defendant's conduct during the Gulf War and
    the medals he received. As we understand the record, these medals were not
    awarded for the defendant's individual activity and we are not as impressed
    with the decorations as was the district judge. Nevertheless, defendant served
    honorably under combat conditions and that service was deserving of some
    consideration by the sentencing judge. Combat duty is quite different than mere
    service in the military. Cf. U.S.S.G. 5H 1.11 (military service is ordinarily not
    relevant to a departure). In any event, it is the atypical circumstances of the
    offense here that underlie the downward departure.

    In Koon, the Supreme Court stressed that "[i]t has been uniform and constant in
    the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every
    convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the
    human failings that sometimes mitigate, some magnify, the crime and the
    punishment to ensue." 116 S.Ct. at 2053.

    10

    The judgment will be affirmed.

    **

    The Honorable Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Unites States Senior Circuit Judge for the
    United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of Tenth Cir. R. 36.3

    You might also like