United States v. Iceman, No. 14-3833 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAt the time defendant committed the crime of strangulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(8), the Sentencing Commission had yet to promulgate a corresponding sentencing guideline. Defendant was sentenced under the Guidelines section for Domestic Violence pursuant to USSG 2A6.2. On appeal, defendant appealed his 41 month sentence. The court found that the Domestic Violence guideline is the most analogous guideline because it is the only provision that accounts for the intimate relationship between the attacker and victim. The court also found that the district court did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when it sentenced defendant under the guideline in effect at the time of his offense of conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentencing. At the time of the offense of strangulation, the Sentencing Commission had not yet promulgated a corresponding guideline; the district court's reliance on U.S.S.G. sec. 2A2.3 was proper, as the underlying facts of the strangulation conviction was consistent with domestic violence; it was the only guideline containing the same element of the existence of an intimate relationship between the attacker and the victim. There was no evidence that district court sentenced Iceman under Guideline in effect at the time of sentencing and thus sentence did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Thus, the district committed no error, let alone plain error.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.