United States v. Edward Duckworth , 618 F. App'x 631 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-15329 Date Filed: 07/17/2015 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15329
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00100-WKW-CSC-16
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDWARD DUCKWORTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(July 17, 2015)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15329 Date Filed: 07/17/2015 Page: 2 of 7
Edward Duckworth appeals his 14-month sentence, imposed after pleading
guilty to one count of conspiracy to sponsor, exhibit, buy, sell, possess, train, or
transport a dog for participation in an animal fighting venture, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 and 7 U.S.C. § 2156(b). On appeal, he argues that the district court
erred in (1) applying a base offense level of 12 under U.S.S.G. § 2E3.1(a)(1) rather
than 10 under U.S.S.G. § 2E3.1(a)(2); and (2) not applying a minor or minimal role
reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. After consideration of the parties’ briefs and
review of the record, we find that the district court did not err in either decision.
Accordingly, we affirm Duckworth’s sentence.1
I.
Duckworth first argues that he should have been assigned a base offense
level of 10, under U.S.S.G. §2E3.1(a)(2), instead of the level of 12 that he was
assigned, under U.S.S.G. § 2E3.1(a)(1). We review a district court’s factual
findings for clear error, and its application of the Guidelines to those facts is
reviewed de novo. See United States v. Dimitrovski, 782 F.3d 622, 628 (11th Cir.
2015). “‘The findings of fact of the sentencing court may be based on evidence
heard during trial, facts admitted by a defendant’s plea of guilty, undisputed
statements in the presentence report, or evidence presented at the sentencing
1
Although Duckworth was released from federal imprisonment on May 1, 2015, he is
currently serving his term of supervised release, “which is part of his sentence and involves some
restrictions upon his liberty.” Dawson v. Scott, 50 F.3d 884, 886 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995). Thus, his
appeal is not moot. See id.
2
Case: 14-15329 Date Filed: 07/17/2015 Page: 3 of 7
hearing.’” United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010)
(quoting United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir. 1989)).
“‘Offense’ means the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct under
§ 1B1.3 . . . unless a different meaning is specified or is otherwise clear from the
context.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(H). The base offense level is determined on
the bases of “all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant,” and, “in the
case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity . . . , all reasonably foreseeable acts
and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A)–B.
Under § 2E3.1(a) (“Gambling Offenses; Animal Fighting Offenses”), the
base offense level is:
(1) 12, if the offense was (A) engaging in a gambling business;
(B) transmission of wagering information; or (C) committed as part
of, or to facilitate, a commercial gambling operation; or
(2) 10, if the offense involved an animal fighting venture.
Id. § 2E3.1(a)(1)–(2). An “animal fighting venture” is defined as “any event, in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, that involves a fight conducted or to be
conducted between at least 2 animals for purposes of sport, wagering, or
entertainment.” 7 U.S.C. § 2156(g); see U.S.S.G. § 2E3.1 cmt. n.1.
As an initial matter, we find that the district court did not clearly err in
determining that Duckworth was involved beyond just the April 7, 2012 fight in
3
Case: 14-15329 Date Filed: 07/17/2015 Page: 4 of 7
which he admitted participating. Evidence existed that Duckworth refereed fights,
fought dogs in other fights, and trained dogs. In addition, Duckworth was known
by other participants as being involved in the dog fighting circuit. Furthermore,
the district court did not clearly err in finding that the gambling activities of the
other codefendants (the facts of which are not contested here) were reasonably
foreseeable to Duckworth. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (stating that the base
offense level in jointly undertaken criminal activity includes “all reasonably
foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken
criminal activity”).
Accordingly, based on these facts, the district court did not err in applying
the base level of 12 under § 2E3.1(a)(1). Looking to the plain language of the
guideline, the gambling activities of Duckworth’s co-conspirators fit within
“engaging in a gambling business” or “a commercial gambling operation.” See
U.S.S.G. § 2E3.1(a)(1). Although Duckworth argues that dog fighting is
quintessentially economic, the guideline definition of animal fighting is broader
and can include fights for sport or entertainment, not just those for wagering. See 7
U.S.C. § 2156(g); U.S.S.G. § 2E3.1 cmt. n.1.
While Duckworth also argues that the statutory definition of “gambling
business” as found in 18 U.S.C. 1955(b)(1) should apply, there is no cross-
reference in the guideline (unlike for animal fighting) and, therefore, we look to the
4
Case: 14-15329 Date Filed: 07/17/2015 Page: 5 of 7
plain language of gambling. See United States v. Cruz, 713 F.3d 600, 607 (11th
Cir. 2013) (“When interpreting the Guidelines, a guideline’s meaning is derived
first from its plain language and, absent ambiguity, no additional inquiry is
necessary.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, even if we were to
apply the § 1955 definition, Duckworth’s offense qualifies—it was illegal,
involved 5 or more people, and grossed far more than $2,000 in a single day. See
18 U.S.C. 1955(b)(1). Thus, we do not find that the district court erred in
assigning Duckworth a base offense level of 12.
II.
Duckworth next argues that the district court should have applied a minor or
minimal role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. A district court’s determination of
a defendant’s role in an offense is a finding of fact that we review for clear error.
United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en
banc). “[T]he district court has considerable discretion in making this fact-
intensive determination.” United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277–78 (11th
Cir. 2002).
Under the Guidelines, a defendant may receive a reduction for having a
limited role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The defendant may receive a
four-level reduction if he was a minimal participant, a two-level reduction if he
was a minor participant, or a three-level reduction if he was somewhere between a
5
Case: 14-15329 Date Filed: 07/17/2015 Page: 6 of 7
minimal and minor participant. Id. The determination of whether to apply a
mitigating role adjustment “is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular
case.” Id. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). “The defendant has the burden of establishing his
role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Alvarez-
Coria, 447 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Here, the district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply a minor role
reduction or a minimal role reduction. Duckworth transported a dog and fought it
at a dog fight hosted by one of his codefendants on April 7, 2012. And, as
mentioned above, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Duckworth
also fought dogs in other dog fights, refereed fights hosted by a codefendant,
received money from this codefendant to train dogs, and had trained other
individuals’ dogs. Duckworth also knew the scope of operations and activities of
others and was known by others in the dog fighting circuit. Cf. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
cmt. n.4 (noting that minimal participation may be indicated by a defendant’s “lack
of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of
the activities of others”).
In light of these activities, it was not clearly erroneous to find that
Duckworth was not substantially less culpable than or plainly among the least
culpable of the other participants, even excluding those individuals who only
attended the dog fights. See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940; see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
6
Case: 14-15329 Date Filed: 07/17/2015 Page: 7 of 7
cmt. n.3(A). The fact that he did not plan the fights or take wagers is not
dispositive, because although his role may have been less than some of the other
participants, “it is possible that none of them are minor or minimal participants.”
See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944. That is particularly appropriate here, where
Duckworth, despite his potentially lesser culpability than some codefendants, still
kept 12–15 dogs of his own, trained and fought dogs, refereed fights, and was
known and discussed by other participants regarding dog fighting and gambling.
Thus, Duckworth has not established his qualification for a minor role reduction by
a preponderance of the evidence, and the district court did not err in finding that
the reduction did not apply. See Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d at 1343.
Accordingly, we affirm Duckworth’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
7