Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Sheppard, 10th Cir. (2004)
United States v. Sheppard, 10th Cir. (2004)
TENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 27 2004
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 03-6207
Defendant-Appellant.
not ordinarily review issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. Stump v. Gates, 211
F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir. 2000). Although we have recognized an exception to this
general rule when an issue initially raised in a reply brief relates to our subject matter
jurisdiction, Sadeghi v. INS, 40 F.3d 1139, 1143 (10th Cir. 1994), this requirement of
3553(c) is not jurisdictional. The district courts statement on the record is more than
adequate to permit a meaningful review, particularly in light of the fact that we are
required to review the district courts decision de novo. See 18 U.S.C. 3742(e).
Therefore, any error on the part of the district court in failing to reduce its reasoning to
writing does not affect Sheppards substantial rights. Even if Sheppard had timely raised
the issue, we would conclude the courts failure in this regard was harmless. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52(a) (stating that [a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not
affect substantial rights must be disregarded).
To determine whether the district court improperly departed from the guidelines
range, we must determine (1) whether the factors the district court relied upon advance
the objectives set forth in section 3553(a)(2), (2) whether the district court relied on a
factor not authorized under section 3553(b), (3) whether the departure is justified by
the facts of the case, and (4) whether the sentence departs to an unreasonable degree
from the applicable guidelines range, having regard for the factors to be considered in
imposing a sentence, as set forth in section 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. 3742(e)(3)(B)(i-iii),
(C).
4
clearly erroneous and we accept those factual findings as true. See Jones, 332 F.3d at
1299. The court found that Sheppard discharged firearms without regard for the safety of
others and in a manner that posed a substantial risk of death or bodily injury to multiple
individuals. Because an upward departure for public endangerment is expressly
sanctioned by the guidelines and because the 4-level upward departure was based on
sound analogy to the guidelines, the upward departure does not depart to an
unreasonable degree from the applicable guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C.
3742(a)(3)(C). A sentence imposed based upon either extrapolation or analogy from
the guidelines will ordinarily meet the requirements of proportionality and uniformity.
United States v. Kalady, 941 F.2d 1090, 1101 (10th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED. The governments motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge