UNITED STATES v. SICHTING (2018)

Shane Sichting pleaded guilty to using a facility of interstate commerce in the attempted commission of a murder-for-hire-scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), and to attempting to kill two individuals with the intent to retaliate against them for their cooperation with law enforcement officers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a)(1)(B). The presentence report calculated an advisory sentencing range of 121 to 151 months’ imprisonment, determined from an offense level of 30 and a criminal history category of III, and the district court imposed a sentence of 135 months’ imprisonment.

Sichting’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no grounds for appeal but questioning, as relevant here, whether the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for extensive planning.^* In an order dated October 11, 2017, we directed the government to submit a brief addressing that enhancement, as well as whether the two counts of conviction should have been grouped together under U.S.S.G. § 3D.1.2. Our resolution of these issues in Sichting’s favor would at most reduce his offense level from 30 to 29. During the discussion of the issue at oral argument, however, it was surmised that the proper offense level might even be higher than that applied by the district court. In light of this possibility, Sichting made clear, as stated in his brief, that he was not challenging the actual sentence given. The government, which did not file a cross-appeal, also stated that it was not challenging the sentence given. Indeed, both parties made emphatically clear that they were satisfied with the sentence and were not seeking a remand for resentencing. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Sichting’s Anders brief also questioned whether the district court complied with all of the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when it accepted his guilty plea. Reviewing this issue for plain error, we see no reversible error in the district court’s plea colloquy and therefore affirm Sichting’s convictions.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.