U.S. v. Godman

9 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Reichert

    747 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2014)   Cited 29 times
    Concluding that the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense was not violated by the exclusion of testimony because the defendant "had at least one other avenue of putting his own statements and beliefs into evidence: by taking the stand himself"

    ” Id. While a district court's factual findings underlying its application of the enhancement are reviewed for clear error, see United States v. Wilson, 345 F.3d 447, 449 (6th Cir.2003), “[t]he district court's conclusion that skills possessed by a defendant are ‘special’ within the meaning of the Guideline ... is a mixed finding of law and fact that this court reviews de novo.” United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322 (6th Cir.2000); see United States v. Tatum, 518 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir.2008). Reichert contends that his skills are not “special” within the meaning of § 3B1.3. Emphasizing that he is a truck driver with only a high school diploma, Reichert points to § 3B1.3, cmt. n. 4, which explains, “ ‘Special skill’ refers to a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts.”

  2. United States v. Reichert

    No. 13-3479 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2014)   1 Legal Analyses

    " Id. While a district court's factual findings underlying its application of the enhancement are reviewed for clear error, see United States v. Wilson, 345 F.3d 447, 449 (6th Cir. 2003), "[t]he district court's conclusion that skills possessed by a defendant are 'special' within the meaning of the Guideline . . . is a mixed finding of law and fact that this court reviews de novo." United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322 (6th Cir. 2000); see United States v. Tatum, 518 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir. 2008). Reichert contends that his skills are not "special" within the meaning of § 3B1.3. Emphasizing that he is a truck driver with only a high school diploma, Reichert points to § 3B1.3, cmt. n.4, which explains, "'Special skill' refers to a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts."

  3. United States v. Berry

    717 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 2013)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that jury may draw reasonable inferences from evidence to establish possession

    Computer skills cover a wide spectrum of ability.”). Compare id. at 506–07 (concluding that the defendant's “high level” computer skills qualified as a special skill), with United States v. Lee, 296 F.3d 792, 799 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the defendant's computer skills were not a special skill because, inter alia, they did not rise to the level of sophistication of the defendant's special skills in Petersen, supra ), and United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322–23 (6th Cir.2000) (same). The Panel's opinion recognizes this point (albeit tacitly) because it focuses on Mr. Berry's particular truck-driving abilities, rather than on whether or not truck-driving skills categorically constitute a special skill.

  4. U.S. v. Lee

    296 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that developing a basic website does not require "special skills" as established in Petersen

    Id. at 944-45. 223 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2000).See id. at 322-23.

  5. U.S. v. Lee

    No. 01-10179 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2001)

    (FN15). 223 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2000). (FN16).

  6. United States v. Lord

    915 F.3d 1009 (5th Cir. 2019)   Cited 85 times
    Finding that because defendant’s "arguments do not go to their factual innocence" and instead "amount to an assertion of their legal innocence," they are an insufficient ground to withdraw a plea

    Id . at 507 n.5 ; see also Lee , 296 F.3d at 798 ("[T]his adjustment becomes open-ended to the point of meaninglessness if the phrase ‘special skill’ is taken out of its context."). In United States v. Godman , 223 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit considered Petersen and quoted and followed the limiting footnote. Id . at 322–23.

  7. U.S. v. Tatum

    518 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2008)   Cited 15 times
    Stating that the rationale underlying § 3B1.3 is akin to punishment for violating a fiduciary duty

    Thus, de novo review applies to the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines' definition of "position of trust" and "special skills." See id. at 665; see also United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322 (6th Cir. 2000). B. Definition of the Enhancement

  8. U.S. v. O'Brien

    435 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 24 times
    Holding "it is enough to sustain the conviction that the result would quite likely have been the same" despite an erroneous instruction

    See also United States v. Noah, 130 F.3d 490, 499-500 (1st Cir. 1997). Given the special training needed for Amadeus, O'Brien would qualify for the enhancement even under the Sixth Circuit's more defendant-friendly view of the enhancement taken in United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322-23 (6th Cir. 2000), a case on which O'Brien relies. In addition, Godman is not the law in this circuit.

  9. U.S. v. Prochner

    417 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2005)   Cited 55 times
    Upholding supervised release conditions involving sex offender treatment and limiting defendant's contact with minors even though "the record contain[ed] no direct evidence that [the defendant had] engaged in inappropriate conduct with minors"

    Courts in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have, on occasion, gone quite far in insisting, as a sine qua non, upon an extensive amount of formal education, training and licensing. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 296 F.3d 792, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Godman, 223 F.3d 320, 322-23 (6th Cir. 2000). As noted, we do not go so far. Where the record supports a finding of a skill of sufficient kind and scope at a level well beyond that of a member of the general public, we will affirm the reasonable judgment of the district court.