When is an injury "permanent" under the Guidelines?

 

When is an injury "permanent" or "life-threatening" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines? The Court provides some additional guidance in its published opinion in United States v. Medlin.

In April 2017, Nigel Medlin and three co-conspirators kidnapped T.F. and two other victims based on a dispute over a stolen vehicle. After transporting T.F. to a fourth co-conspirator's home, they assaulted him by, among other things, using a heated piece of metal to burn and scar his shoulder and by pulling and breaking several of his teeth. Medlin and his co-conspirators released the three victims only after threatening them with death if they reported the assault.

A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Medlin and his co-conspirators for one count of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) and one count of brandishing, using, and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Medlin subsequently pleaded guilty to the kidnapping charge. 

In his PSR, the United States Probation Office recommended the District Court enhance his base offense level under the Guidelines by four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A), which applies “[i]f the victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injur[ies]....” It argued the enhancement applied because T.F. lost teeth and suffered permanent scarring on his face due to the assault committed by Medlin and his co-conspirators.  

Medlin objected to this enhancement, arguing T.F.'s injuries did not constitute "permanent or life-threatening body" injuries because they did not fit the definition of the term set out in the Guidelines' commentary. In addition, he argued the commentary definitions unlawfully expanded upon the Guidelines provision, thus, preventing the District Court from enhancing his sentence. 

Adopting the PSR in full, the District Court denied Medlin's objections and concluded the Guidelines recommended a sentencing range of 210 to 262 months' imprisonment based on an adjusted offense level of 35 and a criminal history category III. It then sentenced Medlin to 220 months imprisonment. Medlin appealed his sentence, arguing it was procedurally unreasonable because the District Court erred in applying the four-level enhancement found in  U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A), and because it created an unreasonable disparity between his sentence and those of his co-defendants.

The Court rejected Medlin's arguments. It first held that U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A) was not ambiguous -- thus negating any need to refer to the commentary -- and applied where an an injury was permanent, i.e. where the affected area was "forever changed without the ability to return to what it once was...", or where it was "so serious as to actually threaten the victim's life...." Applying this definition, the Court held the District Court correctly applied the enhancement because T.F. suffered permanent injuries because his teeth and face would never return to their original conditions. Even if the enhancement was ambiguous, however, the Court held the relevant commentary would fall within any "zone of ambiguity" that existed, and that the commentary encompassed T.F.'s injuries. 

The Court also rejected Medlin's argument that the victim's injuries were not permanent because they could heal either naturally or with assistance, such as through surgery or teeth implants. Not so, said the Court. A "permanent injury," the Court held, was one that could not heal and return to its "original form" over time. Thus, since the victim could never get his original teeth back, and because he would have permanent scarring, his injuries were "permanent" under  U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(2)(A).

Rejecting Medlin's remaining argument regarding the disparity between his sentence and those received by his co-defendants, the Court held his sentence was procedurally reasonable. Thus, it affirmed his sentence.