United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2793
___________
United States of America, *
*
Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Eastern District of Missouri.
*
Waquita Wallace, also known as * [PUBLISHED]
Goddess, also known as Quita, *
*
Defendant - Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 16, 2010
Filed: May 13, 2010
___________
Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Waquita Wallace pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking by
fraud, force, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, after Wallace and her sister
imprisoned an 18-year-old woman with mental disabilities and prostituted her. The
sentencing court1 departed upward from the 180-month (15-year) mandatory
minimum and imposed a 240-month (20-year) sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.8.
Wallace challenges her sentence. We affirm.
1
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
Wallace first argues the sentencing court procedurally erred by failing to
consider the principle that a sentence should be “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Wallace contends that the sentencing court
disregarded mitigating evidence that she suffered horrible abuse as a child and focused
on the aggravating circumstances of the offense.
A sentencing court need not always recite § 3553(a) or use special language
when sentencing a defendant. United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir.
2008). “The sentencing judge need only ‘set forth enough to satisfy the appellate
court that he [or she] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis
for exercising his [or her] own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United States v.
Starfield, 563 F.3d 673, 675 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 356 (2007)). Of course some circumstances may require lengthier explanation.
See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356-57. The court must articulate reasons, whether short or long,
for a particular sentence. See id. at 356 (stating § 3553 calls for the judge to state
reasons). The purpose of requiring sentencing courts to articulate the basis of a
particular sentence is to assure reviewing courts that the sentencing process is
reasoned and to help the sentencing process evolve. Id. at 357. The parties and
counsel are entitled to an appropriate explanation of the sentence. See id. at 356-58.
In the record of this case, the sentencing court gave reasons for the sentence.
The sentencing court articulated, among other things, that incarceration would permit
Wallace to address substance abuse and mental health issues. The court also
discussed Wallace’s lack of criminal history but observed that Wallace’s crime was
an “extremely horrible offense.” The court noted that the abuse in Wallace’s
background provided “insight” into her character, but did not excuse her mistreatment
of the victim. The court did not recite each § 3553 factor, however it explained
Wallace’s conduct and background in light of the § 3553 factors. See id. at 356
(stating § 3553 requires courts to state the reasons for imposing a particular sentence
but does not require a “full opinion” in every case). On this record, we cannot say the
-2-
district court procedurally erred because the judge made an “individualized
assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50
(2007).
Wallace next argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
district court’s above-guideline sentence gave no weight to her substantial mitigating
circumstances. Wallace also reasons that her sentence is disparate when compared to
the 120-month sentence in United States v. Scott, 529 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2008). We
review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States
v. Chase, 451 F.3d 474, 481 (8th Cir. 2006) (considering departure under § 5K2.8).
Wallace faced a statutory 15-year mandatory minimum for her crime, and the
district court determined that Wallace’s conduct warranted an upward departure under
U.S.S.G. § 5K2.8. Section 5K2.8 provides that a sentencing court may increase a
sentence above the guideline range where a defendant’s conduct was “unusually
heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.8. Here, the
district court adopted the PSR, which documented Wallace using a knife and cigarette
lighter to inflict injuries on her victim’s exposed breasts; tying her victim to a chair
and leaving her with a rag in her mouth; forcing her victim to drink a cup of urine and
perform an act of bestiality. The court reasoned that the “extreme nature” of the abuse
warranted an above-guideline sentence. The sentencing court also referred to the
mitigating evidence presented by Wallace. Although the sentence is well above the
guidelines, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-