United States v. Daniel Kihn ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-2283
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Daniel Rogers Kihn
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: April 10, 2023
    Filed: April 26, 2023
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Daniel Kihn pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, see
    
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 846, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (a)(1), (h). With a total offense level of 43 and a criminal-history
    category of VI, Kihn’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was life imprisonment.
    Citing his numerous cardiac and respiratory issues, Kihn urged the district court1 to
    depart downward under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4, which permits a downward departure
    based on a defendant’s “extraordinary physical impairment.” The district court
    denied Kihn’s request but nonetheless varied downward and sentenced him to 300
    months’ imprisonment. Noting the seriousness of Kihn’s offenses, the court
    clarified that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had granted Kihn’s
    request for a downward departure. Kihn appeals, arguing that the district court erred
    in denying his request.
    Kihn contends that we may review the district court’s decision not to depart
    downward under § 5H1.4. But see United States v. McCoy, 
    847 F.3d 601
    , 607 (8th
    Cir. 2017) (explaining that we “generally will not review the district court’s refusal
    to grant a downward departure unless the district court had an unconstitutional
    motive or erroneously thought that it was without authority to grant the departure”
    (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even assuming that we may review the
    decision, any error would be harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). “Incorrect
    application of the Guidelines is harmless error where the district court specifies the
    resolution of a particular issue did not affect the ultimate determination of a
    sentence.” United States v. Marin, 
    31 F.4th 1049
    , 1056 (8th Cir. 2022). That
    happened here: though the district court denied Kihn’s request for a downward
    departure, the court varied downward from life imprisonment to 300 months and
    stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had granted Kihn’s
    request for a downward departure.
    Accordingly, we affirm Kihn’s sentence.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Julie A. Robinson, United States District Judge for the
    District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-2283

Filed Date: 4/26/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/26/2023