USA v. Sanford – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a three-level downward sentencing adjustment because the robbery was interrupted by a 911 call rather than voluntary abandonment.
Standard: clear error
Vote: The panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Practical effect: This decision reinforces that a defendant's attempt to stop a crime after realizing law enforcement has been contacted does not qualify as voluntary abandonment for sentencing reduction purposes if the intervention was the primary cause of the failure to complete the crime.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a sentencing adjustment for a defendant involved in a liquor theft scheme. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for the adjustment because the robbery was interrupted by a 911 call rather than voluntary abandonment.

Background

Defendant Ivin Kitu Sanford was convicted of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 United States Code section one thousand nine hundred fifty-one subsection a. The conviction stemmed from a scheme to steal high-end liquor bottles from multiple BevMo stores in the Los Angeles area. At sentencing, the district court denied Sanford’s request for a three-level downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. section two point one point one subsection b.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the denial of the three-level departure for clear error. U.S.S.G. section two point one point one subsection b authorizes a downward departure only if the defendant was about to complete the acts but for apprehension or interruption by an event beyond their control. The district court found that Sanford and his co-conspirators only failed to complete the robbery due to a 911 call. Although Sanford encouraged his co-participants to leave after overhearing the call, the court found this did not constitute voluntary abandonment. But for the 911 call, the robbery would have been completed.

What it means going forward

This decision reinforces that a defendant’s attempt to stop a crime after realizing law enforcement has been contacted does not qualify as voluntary abandonment for sentencing reduction purposes if the intervention was the primary cause of the failure to complete the crime.