2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-12-2010 

# U SA v . F rede rick B a

ynes P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2011

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . F r e de r ick B a

yne s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1730. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1730NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 2011

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. FRE D ER I CK BA Y N ES, A ppel l ant

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 688) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 11, 2010 B e f o re : B A R R Y , J O R D A N a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed : M ar ch 12, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . Fr eder i ck B aynes appea l s fr om a j udgm entent er ed bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a upon hi s convi ct i on on el even c ount s of ban k robb ery , i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 11 3(a) , and his sent ence o f 12 6 m on t hs’2

i m pr i s onm ent . B aynes ar gues t hathi s s ent ence s houl d be vac at ed bec aus e the D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n deci di ng, pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) , thathe w as s ubj ectt o a sent encing en han cem ent because he had m ade a d eat h thr eat . F or the fo l l ow i ng reas on s, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I . Backg r ound T h is c a se a rise s f

ro m e lev e n b a n k ro b b e rie s th a t B a yn e s c o m m itt e d in Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a betw een J ul y13, 2007 and O ct ober22, 2007. T he Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m entarr es t ed hi m on O ct ober26, 2007, and, on N ovember7, 2007, a fe der al gr and j ur yi n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a r eturned an e l evenc o u n t in d ic tm e n t c h a rg in g h im w ith b a n k ro b b e ry, in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 (a ). O n D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 8 , B a yn e s p le d g u ilty to a ll c o u n ts o f th e in d ic tm e n t. Fol l ow i ng t he gui l t ypl ea, a pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R e p o rt (“ P S R ” ), w h ich o f f e re d b rie f

a c c o u n ts o f

th e ro b b e rie s. O f

p a rticu lar re lev a n c e to t hi s appea l i s t he fol l ow i ng des cr i pt i on fr om the PSR of a J ul y13, 2007 encount er b etw ee n B ay n es a n d a b an k tel ler: O n J ul y13, 2007, t he def endantent er ed the PN C B ank, l ocat ed at1801 M a rk e t S tr e e t, P h ila d e lp h ia , P e n n s y lv a n ia , a n d a p p ro a c h e d a te lle r w in d o w . T he def endantt hen hande d t he vi ct i m t el l era demand not e w hi ch r ead s om ethi ng t o t he ef

fec tof “no dy e pac k, no t r acke r , 20' s , 50' s and 100' s or I’m g o in g to p u ll th is.” T h e d e f e n d a n t k e p t o n e o f

h is h a n d s d o w n a t h is s id e w h ic h c a u s e d th e v ic tim te lle r t o b e lie v e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s a rm e d . T he vi ct i m t el l ert hen r emoved m oneyfr om the t el l erdr aw erand pr ovi ded i tt o t he def

endant . T he def

endants ubs equent l yfl ed the bank, w i t h t he d e m a n d n o te, a n d w a lk e d e a stb o u n d o n M a rk e t S tre e t.T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 1 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 3 (P S R a t ¶ 9 .) T h e P S R c las sif ied B a yn e s’s c o n d u c t o n th a t o c c a sio n a s a th re a t o f d e a th and, pur s uantt o § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , i ncr eas ed h i s o f f e n s e l e v e l b yt wo l e v e l s . Ba yn e s ’ s c r i mi n a l h i s t o r ywa s c l a s s i f i e d a s c a t e g o r yV, a n d , w ith th e tw o -l e v e l d e a th -t h re a t e n h a n c e m e n t, h is to ta l a d ju s te d o f f e n s e le v e l w a s 2 6 . T h a t yie ld e d a G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 1 1 0 to 1 3 7 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. A tt he February24, 2009 s ent enci ng hear i ng, B aynes di d notcont es tanyof the m at t er s cont ai ned i n t he PSR , and none of the hea r i ng’ s part i ci pant s m ade a nyr efe r ence t o t he dea t h- t hr eatenhanc ement . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thata s ent ence w i t hi n t he G u id e lin e s ra n g e w o u ld a c c o rd w ith th e s ta tu to ry p u rp o s e s id e n tif ie d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a n d im p o s e d a te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

1 2 6 m o n th s . I I . D i s cus s i on 1 B a yn e s’s so le a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l is th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f in d in g th a t h is co n d u ct on Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 0 7 co n sti tuted a thre at of d ea th an d h en ce a f

o u n d ati o n fo r a s ent enci ng enhanc ementunder§ 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) . H e conc edes that , becaus e he di d not ra ise th e iss u e in th e D istric t C o u rt, w e re v ie w th a t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n f o r p la in e rr o r. F ED . R . C R IM . P . 5 2 (b); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 1 5 5 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A ccor di ngl y , B aynes m us ts how “( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n orobvi ous , and ( 3) that aff ect s [hi s ] s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U nited S tates v. B erry , 553 F. 3d 273, 279 ( 3d C i r . 2009)4

(cit ati o n o m itted). If B ay n es sa ti sfies a ll three co n d it ion s, w e “ m aythen ex erc ise [o u r] di s cr et i on t o not i ce a for fei t ed err or , butonl yi f . . . the err ors er i ous l yaff ect [s ] the fai r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” I d. ( quot i ng Johns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 0 U . S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 7 (19 9 7 )). B aynes argues t hat hi s use of the phrase “pu l l this ” i s not a threatof d eat h b ecause

“ [ a ] tm o s t , h e i m p l i e d i n a r t i c u l a t e l y t h a th e p o s s e s s e d s o m e u n k n o w n i n t e n t i o n , c a p a c i ty, o r o b jec t. T h e d e f

in in g q u a lityo f

th e sta tem e n t, th e re f

o re , is th a t itw a s to o v a g u e to perm i tanyconcl us i on as t o w hati tm eant . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at16. ) H e furt her ar gues t hat , even i f hi s s t at ementcoul d be cons t rued as a thr eat , i tw as m er el ya “thr eatof bodi l yharm t hati s gener i c t o al l r obberyoffe ns es – nota thr eatof dea t h. ” (Id . at 19 . ) Sect i on 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) pr ovi des thata def endant ’ s offe ns e l evel i s t o be i ncr eas ed b ytw o le v e ls w h e n a “ th re a t o f d e a th ” is m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith a b a n k ro b b e ry. U . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) . A ppl i cat i on N ot e 6 s ay s thata thr eatof dea t h m aycons i s tof “an or al orw r i t t en s t at ement , act , ges tur e, orcombi nat i on ther eof, ” i d. atapp. n. 6, and t hata def

endant“does nothave t o s t at e expr es s l yhi s i nt entt o ki l l the vi ct i m i n or derfor t he enha ncementt o appl y . ” I d. W e h a v e h e ld th a t “[ a ] th re a t is a ‘th re a t o f d e a th ’ if it w oul d r eas onabl ys o appea rt o t he r ece i verof thatthr eat . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 327 F .3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e f o c u s is o n w h e th e r, u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he vi ct i m ’ s pos i t i on w oul d have vi ew ed the def endant ’ s conductas a th re a t o f

d e a th . I d. a t 2 5 5 , 2 5 6 .5

T he enha ncementcal l ed forby§ 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) appl i es onl yt o death t hr eat s , and w e h a v e sta ted th a t “[ t]re a tin g a ll th re a ts in th e c o u rse o f a ro b b e rya s th re a ts o f

d e a th w oul d defe att he di s t i nct i on t he enha ncements eeks t o captur e. ” I d. at 25 7 . H o w ev er, cont exti s everyt hi ng w hen di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een a thr eatof dea t h and thr eat s of vi ol ence i n gener al , and, “[i ] n cert ai n cont ext s , a gene r al thr eatof vi ol ence m ayr eadi l ybe vi ew ed as encompas s i ng t he pos s i bi l i t yof dea t h. ” I d. at256. W i t h r es pectt o a bank r obbery , w e have hel d t hatt he cont exti s “i nher ent l yi nt i m i dat i ng. ” I d. at257. I n Thom as , w e exa m i ned the fol l ow i ng s t at ementi n a bank r obber ’ s demand not e: “fi l l t he bag w i th $100s , $50s and $20s , a dy e pac k w i l l br i ng m e bac k fory ouras s . ” Id . at25 4. A ti ssue w as w hethert he st at em ent “a dy e pack w i l l bri ng m e back for y ou r as s” cons t i tut ed a thr eatof dea t h forpurpos es of § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F) . W e ac know l edged that “[w ] hetherT hom as ’ s t hr eatw as a thr eatof dea t h oronl ya thr eatof harm i s notfr ee f r om doubt . ” I

d. at257. H ow ever , gi ven the ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch the s t at ementw as m ad e (i. e., d u ri n g the c o u rse o f a b an k rob b ery ), w e h eld th at th e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err i n fi ndi ng t hata r eas onabl e per s on i n t he t el l er ’ s pos i t i on w oul d bel i eve thata thr eatof d e a th h a d b e e n m a d e . I d. Speci fi cal l y , w e s t at ed that , “gi ven the i nher ent l yi nt i m i dat i ng natur e of a ban k robb ery , i tm aybe reasonab l e for a t el l er t o b el i eve h er l i fe i s atri sk w hen s he has been di r ect l yt hr eat ened. ” I d. H er e, B aynes m ade a di r ectthr eatdur i ng the cour s e of a bank r obberyby p r e s e n t i n g t h e t e l l e rw i t h a n o t e t h a ts t a t e d : “ n o d ye p a c k , n o tr a c k e r , 2 0 's , 5 0 's , a n d 1 0 0 'sA ccor di ng t o t he PSR , t he t el l erbel i eved Baynes w as arm ed bec aus e he “ keptone of 2 h is ha n d s d o w n at his side . ” (P S R ¶ 9 , 5 5 . ) B ay n es a rgu es th at th e p o sit ion ing o f h is arm di d notconveyt hathe w as arm ed bec aus e, “[r ] atherthan ‘ hi di ng’ anypartof hi s body fr om vi ew , he s i m pl yhel d ‘ one of hi s hands dow n athi s s i de. ’ ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at 1 5 ) ( q u o tin g P S R ¶ 9 .) H o w e v e r, t h e te lle r, p re s u m a b ly sta tio n e d b e h in d a c o u n te r, i nt erpr et ed B aynes ’ s pos i t i oni ng di ffe r ent l y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tevi dent l yacc ept ed the te lle r’ s in te rp re ta tio n a s re a s o n a b le , a n d w e h a v e n o re a s o n to d is a g re e . 6 orI ’ m goi ng t o pul l t hi s . ” ( PSR at¶ 9. ) A r eas onabl e per s on i n t he t el l er ’ s pos i t i on w oul d have unde r s t ood t he not e t o conveyboth a demand and a r el at ed thr eat . T he demand i s per fec t l ys t r ai ghtforw ar d: gi ve me U . S. curr encyi n 20 dol l ar , 50 dol l ar , and 100 dol l ardenomi nat i ons , and do notputi n w i t h the moneyanydy e pac k ortr acki ng devi ce. T he thr eati s l es s cl earbuts t i l l veryunder s t andabl e. Par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof B aynes ’ s pos i t i oni ng of hi s arm i n a w aythatconvey ed thathe had a w eapon, the 2 st at em ent “pul l t his ” w as r eadil yun derst oo d as a refer ence to pu l l i ng a t ri gg er. T hu s, j ust a s th e sta tem e n t “a d y e p a c k w ill b rin g m e b a c k f o r y o u r a ss ” c o n stitu ted a th re a t o f d e a th i n Thom as , “I ’ m goi ng t o pul l t hi s ” cons t i tut ed a thr eatof dea t h her e, beca us e a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld p e rc e iv e th e sta tem e n t as c o m m u n ica tin g B a yn e s’s in ten tio n to use dea dlyforce i f t he tel l er di d n ot com plyw i t h h i s dem and s. T r eat i ng B aynes ’ s demand not e as a thr eatof dea t h i s al s o s uppor t ed byour hol di ng i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. F iguer oa , w her e w e hel d t hatthe def endantm ade a thr eatof death byhandi ng t he t el l era not e thats t at ed, “I have a gun. G i ve me al l the money . ” 105 F .3 d 8 7 4 , 8 7 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). W e c o n c lu d e d th a t, alth o u g h th e n o te d id n o t ex p licitly co m m u n icate an inten ti o n to u se th e w ea p o n , “itis no t un rea so n ab le fo r a b an k tel ler,7

c o n f ro n ted b ya ro b b e r d e m a n d in g m o n e ya n d .. . cla im in g to h a v e a g u n , to f e a r th a t h is orherl i fe i s i n danger . ” I d. at879. “A ft eral l , w hati s the purpos e of a nnounci ng the pr es ence of the w eapon othert han t o conveyt o t he vi ct i m thatthe w eapon w i l l be us ed unl es s t he vi ct i m compl i es w i t h t he r obber ’ s demands?” I d. F u rth er, w e stated that “[ i] f se c tio n 2 B 3 .1 (b )(2 )(F ) a p p lie[ d ] o n lyto th e d e f e n d a n t w h o e x p licitlyc o m m u n ica tes h is i nt ent i on t o us e the w eapon i f nec es s ary , the r es ul tw i l l be di s par at e s ent ence s for defe ndant s w ho have c om m i t t ed the s ame cr i m e us i ng the s ame m eans butw ho have di ffe r ed i n t hei rverbos i t yorar t i cul at enes s . ” I d. a t 8 8 0 . A gai n, i n l i ghtof the ci r cumst ance s , a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d i nt erpr etthe p h ra se , “I’ m g o in g to p u ll th is,” to m e a n th a t B a yn e s h a d a g u n a n d in ten d e d to u se it i f t he t el l erdi d notcompl yw i t h hi s demands. I tcannotbe s ai d t hata r eas onabl e per s on w oul d bel i eve thatB aynes m eantt o pul l outa harm l es s obj ectorm er el ydi s pl aya w eapon w ith o u t th re a te n in g to u s e it. In su m , w e d o n o t b e liev e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f in d in g th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rs o n in th e te lle r’ s s itu a tio n w o u ld h a v e v ie w e d B a yn e s ’s s ta te m e n t a s a th re a t o f d e a th . A ccor di ngl y , B aynes has fai l ed t o s how an err ori n hi s s ent enci ng, l etal one a pl ai n err or a f f e c tin g h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he af

or ement i oned r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entand s ent ence of the D is tr ic t C o u rt .