United States v. Price

Citations: 65 F.3d 903; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27616; 1995 WL 545374Docket: 94-6141, 94-6152

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; September 29, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John and David Price were convicted for conspiracy to commit murder, violating 18 U.S.C. § 371, and for using interstate commerce facilities to facilitate murder-for-hire, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1958. John Price also faced charges for solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 373, while David was separately convicted for the same interstate commerce violation. Both were acquitted of charges related to witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A). John received a 360-month prison sentence with fines, and David was sentenced to 300 months with fines. The Prices appealed their convictions and sentences. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing.

The facts indicate that John Price was the president of Price Rubber Corporation and that he and his son David had a history of conflicts with various individuals, including David Hawthorne and Sy Shafer, stemming from business dealings and a past arson incident linked to Hawthorne. Tensions escalated when Shafer and Lucas, who had litigation against John and his nephew Kenny Price, became involved in disputes over their business sale. Amid legal troubles and a lengthy IRS audit, the Prices plotted revenge against their perceived enemies, initially contacting Bobby Price to facilitate their plans, which included hiring hitmen to target Capouano's law office and Hawthorne, as well as adding others to their "hit list."

Bobby Price was arrested on July 8, 1992, for marijuana trafficking and agreed to cooperate with the government to reduce his sentence by providing information about a murder-for-hire scheme involving the Prices. On August 14, 1992, during a meeting orchestrated by federal agents, Bobby learned from David Price that Kenny Price and David Hawthorne were targets for murder. Bobby was taken to "case" Kenny's trailer and received $1,500 from David. A subsequent meeting with John Price revealed his intention to harm Kenny, though he hesitated to kill him, while expressing a desire to eliminate David Hawthorne.

By September 16, Bobby facilitated introductions between David and undercover FBI agents, leading to a series of meetings where plans were made for the murders of Kenny Price, David Hawthorne, and Sy Shafer, as well as a bombing plot against Leon Capouano's law office. In January 1993, John Price requested the "well damaged carcass" of IRS agent Dwight Huff in retaliation for an audit. On January 27, 1993, federal agents informed John that Sy Shafer's murder had been carried out, and he paid $20,000, expressing eagerness for further actions. Later that day, John and David were arrested.

The Prices were indicted and tried in June 1993, acquitted of two witness tampering counts, but a mistrial was declared on other counts due to a deadlocked jury. They were retried in July 1993, resulting in guilty verdicts. The Prices' motion for a new trial, citing juror misconduct, was denied after the court found instances of misconduct but ruled they did not prejudice the defendants. David Price received a 300-month prison sentence, a fine of $726,712.40, and restitution of $350. John Price was sentenced to 360 months, fined $880,752.40, and ordered to pay $350 in restitution. Their sentences included upward adjustments for obstruction of justice, racial motivations, and the severity of victim injuries. On appeal, the Prices argued that they were entrapped, that the cost-of-confinement fines violated constitutional amendments, and that the sentencing guidelines were misapplied.

The Prices contest their convictions on the basis of entrapment, asserting that the government failed to provide adequate evidence to counter their defense. Entrapment requires two elements: government inducement and the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the crime prior to that inducement. The burden initially lies with the defendant to demonstrate inducement, after which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime. In this case, evidence of government attempts to persuade or pressure the Prices to commit murder exists, including offers related to past favors. The Prices argue they were not predisposed to commit the crimes until after initial contact with government agents, highlighting that their reluctance arose from the pressure exerted by those agents. However, the court determined that reasonable evidence existed for a jury to conclude the Prices were predisposed to commit their alleged crimes, as David Price's actions, including a downpayment for murders prior to government involvement, indicated a pre-existing willingness to engage in such conduct.

Additionally, the Prices challenge aspects of their sentencing, particularly the constitutionality of fines imposed under U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(i) for costs of incarceration, claiming these fines are excessive under the Eighth Amendment and violate due process under the Fifth Amendment for lacking a rational connection to the Sentencing Reform Act's purposes. They also contest a two-level upward departure in their sentences based on the severity of their actions.

The Prices contend that U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(i), which mandates cost-of-incarceration fines, conflicts with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (1988), which requires sentences to be sufficient but not greater than necessary. They argue that the additional fines imposed exceed what is permissible under the Eighth Amendment, claiming such fines are excessive. The court, however, rejects this argument, asserting the fines are neither excessive nor grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed. The rationale is that fines based on the duration of imprisonment are inherently proportional to the offense. The Prices also assert that it is unreasonable to impose fines for costs not yet incurred; the court finds this argument irrelevant, emphasizing that fines penalize criminal conduct rather than cover future imprisonment costs, with proceeds directed to the Crime Victims Fund. 

Contrastingly, the Third Circuit's prior ruling invalidated guideline 5E1.2(i) on the basis that it was intended to reimburse the government for imprisonment costs, which the court found was outside the Sentencing Reform Act's scope. The current court aligns with the Fifth Circuit's view that imposing fines based on individual terms of imprisonment is a rational method to aid crime victims. This perspective has been upheld by other circuits, leading the court to reject the Prices' constitutional challenges. 

Regarding the upward departure in sentencing, the trial court determined that the Prices' actions significantly exceeded typical case parameters, opting to increase their sentences by two levels. The court identified three aggravating factors: 1) the extreme nature of their conduct, including racially motivated harassment and plans to harm an IRS agent; 2) the potential risk to bystanders from their plot to bomb a law firm; and 3) the severe psychological harm inflicted on victims. These factors were collectively considered without assigning individual weight, justifying the departure from standard sentencing guidelines.

The Prices contest the trial court's decision to depart from sentencing guidelines, claiming those guidelines adequately addressed their crimes and that the court's factual findings were unsupported. Initially, the government sought a four-level departure but now seeks affirmation of a two-level departure as reasonable. Courts may impose sentences outside guideline ranges if aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist that the Sentencing Commission did not adequately consider. A three-step analysis is used to review such departures: assessing whether guidelines sufficiently account for specific factors, examining factual findings for clear error, and evaluating the reasonableness of the departure.

The Prices do not dispute that racial or ethnic motivation is a valid basis for departure but argue that their actions lacked such motivation. The court found no clear error in concluding that the Prices were motivated by ethnic hatred in their harassment of Leon Capouano. Evidence showed they were aware of Capouano's Jewish background and engaged in racially charged vandalism and remarks. Although the Prices claimed their conduct was impulsive and isolated, the court found indications of premeditation.

Regarding the proposed mutilation of IRS agent Dwight Huff, the court determined that the Sentencing Commission's guidelines did not adequately account for the depravity of such actions, warranting a departure. The trial court's findings concerning John Price's explicit orders related to Huff's mutilation were deemed free of clear error.

Additionally, the trial court noted the significant risk of harm to innocent bystanders from the Prices' criminal activities, particularly if their plan to bomb Capouano's law office had succeeded. The Prices contend that the guidelines already considered this risk, but the court maintained that the potential for severe injury to bystanders was not adequately addressed in the guidelines.

The district court's assessment of the risk to innocent bystanders from a bombing was found to be a misapplication of the guidelines, specifically U.S.S.G. 2K1.4, as the risks to third parties are already considered within the guideline for property damage caused by explosives. The court's reliance on this factor for departure was deemed misplaced because the government did not provide evidence that this case presented risks outside the "heartland" of typical bombing scenarios. Additionally, the court's basis for an upward departure due to extreme psychological injury to victims, particularly Kenny Price, was challenged. While the Prices did not dispute the court's authority to impose such an increase, they argued that the evidence did not demonstrate that the victims experienced injuries significantly more severe than what is expected in murder cases. The standard for "extreme psychological injury" requires substantial impairment lasting an extended duration, accompanied by physical or behavioral symptoms. The appellate review found no clear error in the trial court's findings regarding the psychological trauma suffered by Kenny Price and other victims, as supported by presentence investigation reports. These reports indicated severe psychological effects, including depression and lifestyle changes for the victims. However, since one ground for the upward departure was already accounted for in the guidelines, the appellate court could not affirm the two-level departure as reasonable. Consequently, the court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, while affirming the Prices' convictions.