United States v. Ian Good Left ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 23-1295
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Ian Todd Good Left
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of North Dakota - Western
    ____________
    Submitted: October 16, 2023
    Filed: December 27, 2023
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Ian Todd Good Left pleaded guilty to assault of an intimate partner by
    strangulation and suffocation, see 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 113
    (a)(8), 1153, and domestic
    assault by a habitual offender, see 
    id.
     § 117(a). Good Left’s Presentence
    Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated a total offense level of 21 and a criminal
    history category of IV, producing an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 57 to
    71 months’ imprisonment. The PSR noted that an upward departure from this range
    may be warranted due to Good Left’s twenty-six prior tribal-court convictions,
    “many of which involved similar violent behavior.” At sentencing, the district court 1
    adopted the PSR and departed upward to a criminal history category of VI. Good
    Left’s adjusted criminal history category of VI, combined with a total offense level
    of 21, produced an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 77 to 96 months’
    imprisonment. The district court sentenced Good Left to 90 months’ imprisonment.
    Good Left appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court committed significant
    procedural error at sentencing and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
    We first review a sentence for significant procedural error, analyzing the
    district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the guidelines de
    novo. United States v. Rooney, 
    63 F.4th 1160
    , 1170 (8th Cir. 2023). A district court
    commits significant procedural error when it “fail[s] to calculate (or improperly
    calculate[s]) the Guidelines range, treat[s] the Guidelines as mandatory, fail[s] to
    consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, select[s] a sentence based on clearly
    erroneous facts, or fail[s] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United
    States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). Good Left asserts that the district court committed
    significant procedural error by relying on his tribal-court convictions as a basis for
    the upward departure and by failing to adequately explain the upward departure.
    We disagree. It was proper for the district court to rely upon Good Left’s
    tribal-court convictions as a basis for the upward departure. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3;
    United States v. Cook, 
    615 F.3d 891
    , 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The Guidelines list
    several situations which may form the basis for an upward departure. Among these
    are when prior sentences for tribal offenses were not used in computing the criminal
    history category.” (citation omitted)). The district court also adequately explained
    its reasons for departing upward. At sentencing, the district court assigned six
    additional criminal history points to Good Left due to his tribal-court convictions.
    1
    The Honorable Daniel M. Traynor, United States District Judge for the
    District of North Dakota.
    -2-
    The district court determined that these convictions placed Good Left in a
    “[c]riminal [h]istory [c]ategory of VI rather than V.” It noted that Good Left
    “suffer[ed] from fetal alcohol syndrome” but that an upward departure was
    nevertheless appropriate as Good Left “ha[d] not, apparently, addressed his long
    history of abuse to others.” According to the district court, Good Left’s “history of
    aggression and violent behaviors [was] reoccurring” and he was a “habitual abuser
    of individuals.”
    Although Good Left argues that the district court committed significant
    procedural error based on United States v. Sullivan, 
    853 F.3d 475
     (8th Cir. 2017),
    and United States v. Azure, 
    536 F.3d 922
     (8th Cir. 2008), those cases are
    distinguishable. In Sullivan, we concluded that the district court erred in departing
    upward from criminal history category II to category VI based on conduct that had
    not resulted in convictions and on state-court sentences that the district court thought
    to have been too lenient. 
    853 F.3d at 479-80
    . In Azure, we concluded that the district
    court abused its discretion in departing upward from criminal history category I to
    category VI based on questionably relevant evidence and uncharged conduct. 
    536 F.3d at 931-32
    . Here, the district court departed upward by only two criminal history
    categories and sufficiently explained that its decision was based on Good Left’s
    lengthy history of violent behaviors. See United States v. Shillingstad, 
    632 F.3d 1031
    , 1038 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding no significant procedural error at sentencing
    where the district court “departed upward by only two criminal history categories
    and sufficiently explained that its decision was based on [the defendant’s] extensive
    criminal record”). Thus, we discern no significant procedural error.
    In the absence of procedural error, we next consider the substantive
    reasonableness of a sentence under the highly deferential abuse of discretion
    standard. Rooney, 63 F.4th at 1170. The district court did not abuse its discretion
    in sentencing Good Left to 90 months’ imprisonment. Although Good Left
    disagrees with the weight that the district court afforded the different sentencing
    factors, such disagreement is insufficient to establish that the district court abused
    its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States
    -3-
    v. Richart, 
    662 F.3d 1037
    , 1054 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Simply because the district court
    weighed the relevant factors more heavily than [the defendant] would prefer does
    not mean the district court abused its discretion.”).
    Affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-1295

Filed Date: 12/27/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/27/2023