United States v. Pasek , 68 F. App'x 909 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 23 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 02-8085
v. (D.C. No. 02-CR-0044-02-J)
(D. Wyoming)
JAMES GREGORY PASEK,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Judge , McKAY and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant James Pasek was convicted by a jury in United States District
Court for the District of Wyoming on charges of conspiracy to commit bank
robbery, bank robbery and aiding and abetting a bank robbery, two counts of
using a firearm and aiding and abetting use of a firearm during a crime of
violence, theft of firearms and abetting the theft of firearms, conspiracy to use
firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence, and felon in possession of a
firearm. He was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment for the conspiracy to
commit bank robbery; 125 months on the bank robbery, theft of firearms,
conspiracy to use firearms during a crime of violence, and felon in possession
charges, to be served concurrently; and five and twenty-five years, respectively,
on the two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, to be served
consecutively to all other terms of conviction. In total, Defendant was sentenced
to 485 months imprisonment. Additionally, he was sentenced to a total of five
years of supervised release, $11,664.52 in restitution, and $700 in special
assessments.
Filing a brief pro se , Defendant challenges the calculation of his sentence
under the Sentencing Guidelines on several grounds relating to criminal history
and offense level points. In addition, his counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting that in his view, after a careful
and conscientious review of the case, there were no meritorious grounds to go
-2-
forward with an appeal. Counsel moves to withdraw from the case, and
Defendant moves to dismiss counsel for ineffective assistance.
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw, and AFFIRM the judgment of
the district court.
Factual Background
On March 8, 2002, less than two months after being released from prison
on a felony charge, Pasek and a confederate he met in prison, Randy Richardson,
broke into a pawn shop in Gillette, Wyoming, and stole two pistols from a display
case. The next day, they drove to Casper, where they stole a Chevy Tahoe from a
dealership, donned hooded sweatshirts, bandanas, and latex gloves, and entered
the East Casper Branch of the First Interstate Bank. Brandishing firearms, Pasek
and Richardson announced they were robbing the bank and ordered those present
to lie on the floor. They made various abusive and threatening statements. While
Richardson guarded the bystanders and employees who were on the floor, Pasek
removed currency from two teller stations and stuffed it in a paper bag. As they
fled from the scene of the crime, currency was falling out through a rip in the
paper bag. Bank personnel reported that Pasek and Richardson stole $28,425, all
but $9,991 of which was ultimately recovered.
While awaiting sentencing in this case, Pasek escaped from the Goshen
County Detention Center and allegedly stole another car from a dealership and
-3-
committed yet another bank robbery in Bozeman, Montana. He was subsequently
arrested in Belgrade, Montana. He is currently in the custody of the State of
Montana awaiting trial on charges stemming from the second bank robbery
incident.
Analysis
We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo . United
States v. Collins , 313 F.3d 1251, 1254 (10th Cir. 2002). Issues raised for the first
time on appeal are subject to a plain error standard. United States v. Bailey , 327
F.3d 1131, 1142 (10th Cir. 2003).
Defendant received four criminal history points on account of two
misdemeanor violations he committed as a minor in 1996, and two offense level
points for obstruction of justice on account of his escape from the Detention
Center while awaiting sentence in this case. Defendant argues that these
calculations were erroneous in three respects.
First, he argues that his two 1996 convictions should not have been treated
as separate convictions for purposes of his prior criminal history because these
sentences were imposed in a consolidated proceeding and based on a single guilty
plea. The district court’s finding that the two convictions were not related is
entitled to deference, Buford v. United States , 532 U.S. 59 (2001), and is not
-4-
clearly erroneous. According to the pre-sentence report (PSR), which was not
challenged below, his convictions were for different crimes, unauthorized use of
an automobile and obtaining property by false pretenses, and were committed
about a month apart. The crimes were in no way factually or legally related. Each
charge has its own docket number, which was retained throughout the sentencing
proceedings, and the record provides no indication that the cases were formally
consolidated. In light of these factors, and contrary to Defendant’s argument, the
fact that these charges were resolved in a single plea agreement does not make
them “related” offenses for purposes of the Guidelines. See United States v.
Alberty, 40 F.3d 1132, 1134-35 (10th Cir. 1994); see also United States v.
Stalbaum , 63 F.3d 537, 539 (7th Cir. 1995) (fact that sentencing occurred on same
day does not establish that cases were consolidated).
Second, Defendant argues that he was a minor at the time he committed
these prior offenses, that his arrest and conviction occurred more than five years
before the instant offense, and thus that these prior offenses should not have been
counted for his criminal history points. The relevant Sentencing Guideline,
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d)(2)(A), which applies to offenses committed prior to age
eighteen, instructs the court to “add 2 points . . . for each adult or juvenile
sentence to confinement of at least sixty days if the defendant was released from
such confinement within five years of his commencement of the instant offense.”
-5-
Defendant did not raise this objection at the sentencing hearing, and therefore we
review for plain error. We find no error (let alone plain error) in the district
court’s calculation. Defendant was sentenced for these prior offenses on May 28,
1996, but his probation was revoked and he began to serve his two consecutive
six-month terms of imprisonment on January 7, 1997. Defendant committed his
bank robbery and related offenses on March 8-9, 2002, less than five years after
release.
Defendant challenges his two offense level points for obstruction of justice
on the ground that his escape from the Detention Center while awaiting trial did
not delay his sentencing hearing, and he has not been tried for escape. These
arguments are made for the first time on appeal, and Defendant did not object to
the district court’s reliance on the PSR; in any event, these arguments are
frivolous. Escape from custody plainly is an appropriate basis for an obstruction
of justice enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(e); see United States v.
Wiseman , 172 F.3d 1196, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding two-level obstruction
of justice enhancement for attempted escape). That the sentencing hearing was
not delayed by his escape (since he was caught as the result of an alleged
commission of another bank robbery in another state) is of no avail to Defendant.
See United States v. Amos , 984 F.2d 1067, 1072 (10th Cir. 1993). Further, that
the alleged escape was not proven at trial is not significant, since if a defendant
-6-
fails to object to his PSR, barring a showing of plain error, he waives the right to
challenge the district court’s reliance on the PSR. United States v. Yarnell , 129
F.3d 1127, 1137-38 (10th Cir. 1997).
In support of each of his arguments, Defendant points out that his ability to
appeal effectively has been frustrated by lack of access to federal law materials.
He requested permission to be escorted from the Gallatin County Jail, where he
was detained, to the nearby Gallatin Law and Justice Center, which contains a law
library. He further states that his “appointed Montana lawyer is not certified in
Federal Law or familiar with my Appeal objections.” Br. 5. We do not agree. In
light of the fact that he was represented by counsel, that he previously escaped
from a detention facility, and that his arguments have been cogently presented in
his pro se brief in this Court, we conclude that denial of his request was neither in
error nor prejudicial. See United States v. Taylor , 183 F.3d 1199, 1205 (10th Cir.
1999) (Sixth Amendment is satisfied by offer of professional representation
alone; the defendant need not be provided with access to legal materials).
In addition to Defendant’s pro se brief, counsel filed an Anders brief in this
Court and has moved to withdraw. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss
counsel for ineffective assistance. The fact that counsel has filed an Anders brief
puts a special duty on this Court to examine the proceedings below with care.
This we have done.
-7-
Conclusion
We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw, and accordingly need not rule
on Defendant’s motion to dismiss counsel. We AFFIRM the decision of the
district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-8-