United States v. Gardenhire, No. 13-50125 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2012, Defendant, age eighteen, aimed a green laser pointer at an incoming seven-passenger Cessna Citation jet as it approached the airport near his home. The laser struck the pilot’s eye, momentarily blinding him, but the pilot was able to safely land the aircraft. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to aiming a laser at the Cessna Citation Jet. The U.S. Probation Office concluded that Defendant “recklessly endangered” the safety of an aircraft within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 2A5.2(a)(2). The district court agreed with the Probation Office and imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of thirty months’ imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the government did not show by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant was aware of the risks created by his conduct; and (2) thus, the district court materially erred in applying the recklessness enhancement, which resulted in a miscalculated Guidelines range.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a sentence imposed for knowingly aiming the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 39A, and remanded for resentencing, in a case in which the district court applied an enhancement for reckless endangerment under U.S.S.G. § 2A5.2(a)(2)(A). The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that the defendant acted recklessly when he aimed his laser beam at the aircraft, where the record is devoid of evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant was aware of the risk created by his conduct. The panel could not say that the error was harmless, and instructed that the matter be assigned to a different district judge on remand. The panel observed that the district court’s statements show its commitment to the idea that, regardless of the evidence presented, the defendant’s conduct was reckless, and that it would likely impose the same sentence on remand, regardless of this court’s rulings. In light of the extremely steep sentencing regime dictated by the recklessness enhancement for wide-ranging conduct covered by § 2A5.2, the panel wrote that it is particularly important that the government is held to its burden of proof and that the enhancements are supported by clear and convincing evidence. UNITED STATES V. GARDENHIRE 3
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.