United States v. Spoerke, 2009 WL 1424042 (C.A.11 (Fla.))
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to unlawfully make destructive devices, unlawfully making one or more destructive devices, and possessing unregistered destructive devices at two different locations. The defendant argued that the US failed to prove the devices were designed to be used as weapons. To be a destructive device under the National Firearms Act, the critical inquiry is whether the device, as designed, has any other value other than as a weapon. The defendant’s devices were destructive devices even if they contained no additional projectiles, because they have no social value.
The defendant was not entitled to a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility; and the imposition of a 44-month sentence did not amount to an unwarranted sentencing disparity.
The defendant challenged the calculation of his guidelines and the reasonableness of his sentence. Where a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse, he has not accepted responsibility and is not entitled to a reduction. Therefore, when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, it is ordinarily expected to be reasonable.
