United States v. Liner ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 12, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 09-4058
v. (D.C. No. 2:08-CR-00570-TS-1)
(D. Utah)
TIMOTHY BRIAN LINER,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Timothy Brian Liner pleaded guilty to one of five
counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute it, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The conviction carried a five year mandatory minimum
sentence. The district court granted Mr. Liner a four-level downward departure
based on his substantial assistance. With this departure, Mr. Liner’s advisory
*
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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
sentencing guideline range was 110 to 137 months of imprisonment. Mr. Liner
moved for a downward variance, requesting a 60-month sentence. The district
court denied this motion and sentenced Mr. Liner to 110 months’ imprisonment.
Mr. Liner appeals the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Exercising
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Liner was arrested five times in seven months; each time police found
methamphetamine and related drug paraphernalia on Mr. Liner or in his vehicle or
residence. He was federally indicted on five counts of possession of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and he pleaded guilty to one of the
drug counts.
A Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) was prepared. The total drug
quantity from the five arrests was 141.7 grams, which resulted in an offense level
of 32. The PSR indicated that Mr. Liner, then 42, began abusing alcohol and
marijuana in 1982, when he was 16 years old. He began using cocaine when he
was 22, and methamphetamine when he was 29. According to the PSR, Mr. Liner
smokes or injects methamphetamine every day. He has experimented with heroin,
LSD, mushrooms, and ecstacy. He sells drugs to support his own drug habit. He
attended, but did not complete, two in-patient substance abuse treatment
programs, once in 1995 and the other in 2003.
-2-
Mr. Liner was convicted of theft once in 1985, three times in 1988; once in
1991; and once in 1992. He was convicted of disorderly conduct in 1988; false
evidence of title in 1989; criminal trespass in 1990; driving under the influence
and giving false information to police in 1991; having an open container in 1997;
attempted illegal possession/use of a controlled substance and theft in 1997;
simple assault in 1997; possession of drug paraphernalia in 1997; illegal
possession and use of a controlled substance in 1999; disorderly conduct in 2000;
possession of a dangerous weapon in 2000; illegal possession of a controlled
substance in 2000; failure to appear in 2003; simple assault in 2003; failure to
stop for police in 2004; and no proof of insurance in 2007. Accordingly, under
the United States Sentencing Guidelines, Mr. Liner’s criminal history resulted in
a Criminal History Category VI. The PSR calculated that with this criminal
history, and after making a departure for acceptance of responsibility, Mr. Liner’s
offense level was 29 and his Guideline range was 151 to 188 months.
The government did not object to the PSR and requested the court sentence
Mr. Liner to 114 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Liner did not object to the
sentencing factors but he did file a sentencing memorandum requesting a variance
from the Guidelines. Arguing that he was drug addict who needed rehabilitation,
and that all of his prior crimes were related to his addiction, he asked the court to
sentence him near the mandatory minimum of 60 months, and allow him to
complete the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).
-3-
The district court denied Mr. Liner’s motion for a below-guidelines
sentence of 60 months, but it did recommend that he be enrolled in the RDAP.
The court granted Mr. Liner a four-level downward departure for substantial
assistance. Thus, applying the Guidelines, the district court found that Mr. Liner
had an offense level of 25, a criminal history of category VI, with a resulting
Guideline range of 110 to 137 months. Considering the sentencing factors of
18 U.S.C. § 3553, the district court concluded that Mr. Liner’s history and
characteristics weighed in favor of a high sentence. The court noted that
Mr. Liner’s offense was a very serious one: he was a drug distributor, who had
possessed over 140 grams of methamphetamine. It noted that Mr. Liner had
embraced a drug and crime lifestyle; had learned nothing from the relatively
lenient sentences he had received in the past; reoffended as soon as he was in a
position to do so; had little or no history of employment; and failed to complete
two drug treatment programs. The district court did acknowledge that Mr. Liner
was trying to change his life by taking classes and receiving a high school
diploma. But the court expressed concern that Mr. Liner had several episodes of
violent criminal history, which it described. The court sentenced Mr. Liner to
110 months’ imprisonment, followed by 60 months of supervised release.
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, Mr. Liner challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence. He acknowledges that the sentence was within a properly calculated
-4-
sentencing Guideline range and that the district court considered and discussed all
of the relevant sentencing factors set out in § 3553. Nonetheless, he argues that
the circumstances of his offense are markedly different from the circumstances
underlying most § 841(a)(1) prosecutions and, thus, that his sentence was
manifestly unreasonable. We find no merit in Mr. Liner’s argument.
This court reviews sentences for reasonableness under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We
also review “a district court’s decision to grant or deny a variance under a
deferential abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Beltran, 571 F.3d
1013, 1018 (10th Cir. 2009). A sentence that is within a properly-calculated
Guidelines range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.
United States v. Sells, 541 F.3d 1227, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129
S.Ct. 1391 (2009). A defendant may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that
the sentence is unreasonable when viewed against the § 3553(a) factors. Id.
Mr. Liner does not assert any procedural unreasonableness, only
substantive unreasonableness. “Substantive reasonableness involves whether the
length of the sentence is reasonable given all the circumstances of the case in
light of the factors set forth in [§ 3553(a)].” United States v. Conlan, 500 F.3d
1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2007). A district court’s sentence is substantively
unreasonable only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly
-5-
unreasonable.” United States v. Friedman, 554 F.3d 1301, 1307 (10th Cir. 2009)
(quotation omitted).
There is no evidentiary support for Mr. Liner’s assertion that the
circumstances of his offense are markedly different from most § 841 prosecutions.
He possessed enough methamphetamine in each of the five arrests that led to his
indictment to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence on each count.
Thus, his argument that he possessed relatively small amounts of
methamphetamine is meritless. Further, he admits that he was distributing
methamphetamine, a very serious offense.
Mr. Liner’s assertion that the district court’s sentence was based on a
mischaracterization of his violent criminal history is also unpersuasive. The
district court stated that Mr. Liner had a conviction for “swinging at officers with
a loaded gun.” R. Vol. IV at 13. This statement does appear to slightly misstate
the PSR’s statement that Mr. Liner repeatedly swung at officers during an arrest
and that police later found a loaded gun in a nearby drawer. But this minor
discrepancy does not alter the violent nature of swinging at police officers and
possessing a loaded firearm, nor any of Mr. Liner’s other violent criminal
behavior, including beating his girlfriend and holding her captive for a day and
punching his girlfriend’s brother. The district court’s characterization of
Mr. Liner’s violent criminal behavior is supported by the record.
-6-
Mr. Liner’s assertion that he was quickly released after each of the five
arrests does not demonstrate that his sentence was unreasonable. Rather, it
merely supports the district court’s finding that Mr. Liner reoffends as soon as he
is in a position to do so. Similarly, Mr. Liner’s assertion that he is addicted and
in need of drug rehabilitation does not demonstrate that the district court’s
sentence was manifestly unreasonable. The district court did take into
consideration Mr. Liner’s need for “medical care, or other correctional
treatment,” § 3553(a)(2)(D), and recommended him for the RDAP program. But
the court also took into account all of the § 3553(a) factors, including the
seriousness of Mr. Liner’s offense; his repeated offenses; the need for adequate
deterrence; and protecting the public from further crimes by Mr. Liner.
The seriousness of Mr. Liner’s criminal conduct, including his drug
distribution; his long drug lifestyle and criminal, occasionally violent, history; his
repeated offenses; and his failure to complete two previous treatment programs all
support the district court’s sentence. Indeed, we find Mr. Liner’s arguments that
his sentence was manifestly unreasonable to be so wholly without merit that we
are compelled to remind Mr. Liner’s counsel of his ethical obligation not to
present frivolous arguments to this court. Attorneys may always file a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), when there are
no non-frivolous grounds for appeal.
-7-
In summary, given the facts presented and the court’s reasoned analysis of
the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, its decision to deny Mr. Liner’s requested
variance and to impose a within-Guidelines range sentence was not an abuse of
discretion.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-8-