USA V. KLENSCH, No. 22-50222 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the defendant, William Klensch, appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of transportation of an illegal alien. Klensch argued that he was entitled to a minor-role reduction in his sentencing, contending that he had no knowledge of the full smuggling operation and was paid only a small sum for his part. The district court denied this reduction because Klensch was the one physically transporting the individuals. However, the appellate court ruled that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard in denying a minor-role reduction, as the court did not conduct a proper comparative analysis of Klensch’s conduct. The court noted that the district court's explanation did not indicate it considered the factors required for a minor-role reduction. As such, the appellate court vacated Klensch’s sentence and remanded for resentencing in regard to the minor-role reduction.
Additionally, Klensch argued that the district court erred by imposing a dangerous-weapons enhancement because he did not possess the stun gun in his car in connection with his illegal smuggling activity. The appellate court rejected this argument, as Klensch acknowledged having the stun gun within his reach while transporting the two men. The court ruled that even if the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof by not requiring the Government to prove a nexus to the stun gun, this error was harmless. As such, the district court's imposition of the dangerous-weapons enhancement was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part a sentence imposed following the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of transportation of an illegal alien, and remanded for resentencing.
Klensch argued that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it determined that he was not entitled to a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because he personally transported two men. Observing that the district court’s cursory explanation for denying the minor-role reduction gives no indication that it considered the factors set forth in the Guideline commentary or did any comparative analysis of Klensch’s conduct, the panel concluded that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard in denying a minor-role reduction. Because the Government did not argue harmless error, the panel vacated the sentence and remanded for the district court to determine whether Klensch played a minor role in the transportation of illegal aliens consistent with the factors listed in § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(c) and this opinion.
Klensch argued that the district court erred by imposing a dangerous-weapons enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.1(b)(5)(C) because he did not possess the stun gun in his car in connection with his illegal smuggling activity. The panel held that even assuming that a nexus standard is required under § 2L1.1(b)(5)(C), as it is under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the district court could still have applied the dangerous-weapon enhancement. The panel therefore concluded that even if the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof by not requiring the Government to prove a nexus to the stun gun, such error was harmless.
District Judge Cardone dissented from the majority’s decision to vacate and remand for resentencing on the minor- role adjustment. She wrote that the majority’s decision marks the first time that this Court has remanded for minor- role resentencing on a record that contains no affirmative misstatement of the law by either the district court or the party whose argument the district court adopted, and does so on a record that would easily sustain the denial of minor role for Klensch’s failure to meet his burden to submit sufficient evidence of other known participants.
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.