Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1720
Appellee,
v.
JAMES STILE,
Defendant, Appellant.
Before
January 3, 2017
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. The defendant, James Stile,
I. Background
hearing. See United States v. Jiminez, 498 F.3d 82, 84 (1st Cir.
the E.W. Moore & Son Pharmacy in Bingham, Maine. He wore a baseball
walked in, Stile forced him behind the pharmacy counter with the
bag and ordered him to fill it with drugs. Stile tied the hands
and feet of the owner, the customer, and the employees with zip
- 2 -
After initially pleading not guilty and going through
Stile now claims were procedural error. First, the district court
a total offense level of 29. The basis for the enhancement was a
the district court did not give the evidence of Stile's drug
- 3 -
II. Discussion
A. Obstruction of Justice
reasons. First, the court found that Stile had assaulted another
against Stile. Second, the court found that Stile had committed
finding.
- 4 -
confessed to having committed the robbery, relating many specific
details that the inmate could not have made up. The government
claim that anyone other than the inmate Stile assaulted was the
adequacy of the government's proof that Stile knew that the inmate
he assaulted was the informant (because the report did not contain
the informant's name), and that the fight occurred because the
explaining to Stile that the court would hear from counsel and
- 5 -
evidence the PSR and assorted exhibits (including a video of the
process with Stile, then argued that the government's evidence was
argument, the district court issued its findings, ruling that Stile
had assaulted the inmate to punish him for informing and to deter
him from testifying and noting the absence of any actual evidence
of a contrary motive.1
and give his own testimony. The court explained that Stile's
request was "a little late in the day," and that, typically,
the decision, not after the judge makes the decision." Stile's
- 6 -
v. Peterson, 233 F.3d 101, 106 (1st Cir. 2000) ("Generally, if
he rests his case; otherwise, he can move the trial court to reopen
testify belatedly and found that Stile was not telling the truth,
the evidence against Stile so strong that it would have made that
The court indicated that Stile would "have a very, very difficult
time" convincing the court that he had not assaulted the inmate
of justice.
- 7 -
exculpatory evidence that would have cast his behavior in a
(1) that the court below committed an error; (2) that the error
was plain; (3) that the error affected the substantial rights of
the defendant; and (4) that "the error 'seriously affects the
Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 73536
(1993)).
- 8 -
behalf. Id. at 95. Before the witness testified, and out of the
presence of the jury, the trial judge singled out the witness for
testify, and if he did and lied, the trial judge would personally
the stand." Id. at 98. Here, Stile reasons, the district court's
States v. Kenney, 756 F.3d 36, 49 (1st Cir. 2014); United States
v. Curran, 926 F.2d 59, 61 (1st Cir. 1991). As most relevant here,
- 9 -
that the defendant be given an adequate opportunity to refute
Am. Educ. Corp., 953 F.2d 717, 722 (1st Cir. 1992) (citation
United States, 553 U.S. 708, 715 (2008) ("Rule 32(i)(1)(C) requires
States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2006) ("It is well-
- 10 -
behalf, see United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 527 F.3d 231, 238
that any error, much less plain error, occurred in this case.
- 11 -
Here, by contrast, at the time the court issued its
until after the record was closed and the court had decided the
still offers no excuse for having failed to testify when given the
discouraged but allowed the testimony, giving Stile more, not less,
- 12 -
its mind on a properly closed record. Its pronouncements therefore
Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1190 (9th Cir. 1998) ("Among the factors
B. Acceptance of Responsibility
D'Angelo, 802 F.3d 205, 210 (1st Cir. 2015). This is particularly
- 13 -
adjustment under 3E1.1 when a sentence is enhanced for
(2) even if the court did not err in applying the obstruction of
that Stile had "failed to show that his case [was] an extraordinary
- 14 -
prosecute him. See U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 cmt. n.3 (although pleading
States v. Meada, 408 F.3d 14, 25 (1st Cir. 2005) (upholding refusal
perjury).
- 15 -
under 3553(a)(1). See Maguire, 752 F.3d at 7 ("Under the
discretion standard.").
v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286, 292 (1st Cir. 2008). The district
with a firearm and tying them up with zip ties. The district court
also considered the impact on the victims and the need to deter
- 16 -
defendants frequently suffer from mental conditions and
addictions.
various 3553(a) factors, his argument does not take into account
than he would have liked. But that type of balancing is, within
- 17 -
The court chose to focus on the features of the crime
this record, the court did not abuse its discretion in giving less
75, 7980 (1st Cir. 2015) ("A sentencing court need not
475, 487 (1st Cir. 2009))); United States v. Gibbons, 553 F.3d 40,
others . . . .").
D. Substantive Reasonableness
Gonzalez, 626 F.3d 639, 647 (1st Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
For the reasons given above, the duration of Stile's sentence was
- 18 -
III. Conclusion
- 19 -