From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Kloor

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 23, 1992
961 F.2d 1393 (8th Cir. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-2312.

Submitted December 9, 1991.

Decided April 23, 1992.

Michael Dwyer, St. Louis, Mo., argued, for appellant.

Patricia A. McGarry, St. Louis, Mo., argued, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.


Edward Kloor appeals his sentence of twenty-one months imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) and 841(a)(1).

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

At sentencing, Kloor told the court that he realized what he had done was wrong and he had accepted the consequences of his wrongdoing. The court declined to make an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. He appeals this denial. We affirm.

The government contends the court's refusal to grant the two level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is not reviewable because Kloor's 21 month sentence would have still been within the lower permissible range of 15 to 21 months confinement. We disagree.

Because there is no certainty from the record that the trial judge would have imposed the same 21 month sentence if the trial judge had granted the acceptance of responsibility adjustment, the issue is reviewable. United States v. Khang, 904 F.2d 1219, 1225 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Luster, 896 F.2d 1122, 1130 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Riascos, 944 F.2d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1991) (because the trial court explicitly noted it would sentence where it did even without challenged enhancement, no remand for resentencing); contra United States v. Hoelscher, 914 F.2d 1527, 1537 (8th Cir. 1990) (if sentence within the overlap of two contested for ranges, issue is not reviewable even without the trial court's particularized finding); but see United States v. Simpkins, 953 F.2d 443, 446 (8th Cir. 1992) (construing Hoelscher to require that "if the sentence imposed falls within the guideline range urged by the appellant and if it is clear that the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of whether the appellant's argument for a lower guideline range ultimately prevailed, then the matter is not reviewable and will not be remanded for resentencing.") (emphasis added); cf. Williams v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (when upward departure rests on both valid and invalid bases, remand is required "unless the reviewing court concludes on the record as a whole, that the error was harmless, i.e., that the error did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed.") Here we cannot say from a review of the record as a whole whether or not the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had the court made the two level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Hence the acceptance issue is itself reviewable.

We find the court's ruling was not clearly erroneous. Though Kloor pleaded guilty, stipulated to the facts of his offense, and did not deny the offense, he also fled from authorities, attempted to hide the express mail package, and consistently refused to expound on the facts of his offense. See United States v. Thompson, 876 F.2d 1381, 1384 (8th Cir.) (although defendant pleaded guilty and provided some information to authorities, § 3E1.1 adjustment properly denied where defendant refused to discuss offense with probation officer and did not voluntarily terminate illegal conduct or surrender himself), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 868, 110 S.Ct. 192, 107 L.Ed.2d 147 (1989). We find no merit to the appellant's other arguments.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Kloor

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 23, 1992
961 F.2d 1393 (8th Cir. 1992)
Case details for

U.S. v. Kloor

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. EDWARD KLOOR, APPELLANT

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Apr 23, 1992

Citations

961 F.2d 1393 (8th Cir. 1992)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Simmons

We have already indicated that, aside from the unreliable testimony of Grenda Pierce, we cannot discern which…

United States v. O'Hagan

Although O'Hagan's present 41-month sentences on all of the fraud counts are within this range, we must…