2009 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 7-27-2009 

# U SA v . Hudgins 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 . 07-4568

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . Hud gin s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 947. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/947NOT 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 os . 07- 4568 and 08- 1379 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. W I LLI A M H U D G I N S, A ppel l ant A p p ea ls 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 . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00490- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y13, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y27, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge . Wi l l i a m H u d g i n s wa s c o n v i c t e d o f th r e e c o u n t s o f

a s i x - c o u n ti n d i c t me n tf o rt wo sep ara te arm ed rob b eries o f th e sa m e b u sine ss six w ee k s ap art. T h e D istri ct C o u rt or i gi nal l ys ent ence d hi m t o 444 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , butl at err evi s ed the s ent ence t o aC o u n t O n e c h arg es H u d g ins w ith interfe ren ce in interstat e c o m m erc e b yrob b ery 1 ( 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ) and C ountT w o w i th us i ng and ca rry i ng a fi r earm dur i ng a cr i m e of v io le n c e (1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 )( A )( ii) ). C o u n ts T h re e th ro u g h S ix , res p e c tiv e ly , ch a rg e H u d g in s a n d F ield s w ith 2 co n sp ir ac yto interfe re w ith interst ate c o m m erc e b yrob b ery(18 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 1 (a)), i nt er fer ence w i th i nt er s t at e comm er ce byr obbery( 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ) , us i ng and carry i ng a fi r earm dur i ng a cr i m e of vi ol ence ( 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ) , and 2 w ith in -G u id e lin e s 3 8 4 m o n th s a f ter th e P ro b a tio n O f

f ice n o tifie d th e c o u rt it ha d e rre d in i t s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange c om put at i on. H udgi ns r ai s es tw o i s s ues on appea l : ( 1) w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on t o s everC ount s O ne and Tw o of the in d ictm en t from C o u n ts T h ree thro u g h S ix; an d (2) w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt im p o s e d a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e in lig h t o f th e s e n te n c in g f

a c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied H u d g in s’s m o tio n to se v e r a n d th a t it im p o s e d a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . T he gr and j ury ’ s i ndi ctm ental l eged s i x count s agai ns tH udgi ns . C ount s O ne and T w o ste m f

ro m H u d g in s’s a lleg e d a rm e d ro b b e ryo f JM F ilm s, 3 6 2 1 N o rth B ro a d S tre e t, P hil adelphi a, i n M ay , 20 06 . T he g ov ernm ent al l eges t hat on M ay , 18 , 20 06 , H ud gins, 1 act i ng al one, gai ned entr ance t o J M Fi l m s byt el l i ng the s t or e’ s cl erk he w as an acqua i nt ance of co- defe ndantL er oyFi el ds . O nce i ns i de the s t or e, H udgi ns pr oduced a h a n d g u n a n d o rd e re d th e c ler k to g iv e h im th e sto re ’s m o n e y . H u d g in s s to le a p p ro x im a te ly $ 1 ,5 0 8 f ro m th e s to re , a lo n g w ith th e c le rk ’s c e ll p h o n e . C o u n ts T h ree thro u g h S ix o f th e ind ictm en t st em fro m H u d g ins’s an d F iel d s’s al l eged a r m ed r obberyof the s ame st or e i n J ul y , 2006. T he governm ental l eges that 2p o sses sion o f a firearm b ya c o n v ict ed fe lon (18 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), 9 2 4 (e)). 3 Hu d g i n s , th i s t i me wi th F i e l d s a n d a th i r d i n d i v i d u a l n o ta p p r e h e n d e d , e n t e r e d J M F i l ms w i th a gun, beatthe cl erk w i th t he gun, and bound the cl erk’ s hands . O ffi cer s arr i ved on the s cene t o fi nd H udgi ns and Fi el ds rum m agi ng thr ough the s t or e, arr es t ed them bot h, a n d re c o v e re d th e g u n . Be f o r e tr i a l , Hu d g i n s f

i l e d a mo t i o n t o s e v e rth e c o u n t s r e l a t e d t o th e two r obber i es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, fi ndi ng s ubs t ant i al s i m i l ar i tyand co n n ec ti o n b etw ee n the M ayan d Ju lyrob b eries, i n ac co rda n ce w ith F ed . R . C ri m . P . 8 (a), and no r eas ons w hypr ej udi ce w oul d r es ul tfr om j oi nderunderFed. R . C r i m . P. 14. Fi el ds p led g u il tyto all C o u n ts ag ains t him an d test ifi ed ag ains t H u d g ins a t his tri al. T h e jury acqui t t ed H udgi ns of C ount s O ne, T w o and Si x ( the count s as s oci at ed w i th the M ay r obberyand the fi r earm s pos s es s i on count ) and convi ct ed hi m of C ount s T hr ee, Fourand F iv e (t h e c o u n ts a s s o c ia te d w ith th e J u ly ro b b e ry). A tH udgi ns ’ s or i gi nal s ent enci ng hear i ng, he r ai s ed s ever al obj ect i ons w i th the courti ncl udi ng i neff

ect i venes s of couns el . T he governm entar gued fora w i thi nG u id e lin e s s e n ten c e , n o tin g H u d g in s’s p rio r h isto ryo f p re y in g o n e ld e rlyv ictim s, h is m ul t i pl e par ol e vi ol at i ons , and hi s r epea t ed t erm s i n s t at e pr i s on. T he courtthen i m pos ed a s e n te n c e o f

4 4 4 m o n th s , a t th e b o tto m o f th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . B efor e the D i s tr i ctC our ts i gned the j udgm entand comm i t m entor der , how ever , t he4

Pr obat i on O ffi ce a dvi s ed the courti thad err ed i n i t s G ui del i nes r ange c om put at i on; the r evi s ed r ange w as 360 m onths t o l i fe. H udgi ns w as gr ant ed a r e- s ent enci ng hear i ng, w h ere the c o u rth ea rd f rom H u d g ins, his fa m il ym em b ers, an d h is co u n sel. H u d g ins’s couns el as ked fora s ent ence atthe l ow end of the G ui del i nes . T he courtthen i m pos ed a w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e o f 3 8 4 m o n th s . DI S CU S S I ON T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s courthas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. W e r evi ew t he jo in d e r o f

o f f e n s e s u n d e r R u le 8 (a ) d e n o v o . U nited S tates v. Ir izarry , 341 F. 3d 273, 287 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on fors ever ance foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U

nited S tates v. H

art , 273 F. 3d 363, 369 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e r evi ew th e c o u rt ’s s e n te n c e f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 4 (2 0 0 7 ). I . Severance H udgi ns fi r s tar gues thatj oi nderof the M ayand J ul yr obber i es w as i m pr oper beca us e the perm i s s i bl e j oi ndergr ounds underR ul e 8( a) w er e notpr es ent . T he governm entar gues thattheyw er e, not i ng thatthe tw o r obber i es w er e of s i m i l archar act er a n d th a t th e yw e re p a rt o f a c o m m o n p lan . R u le 8 (a ) sta tes th a t: T h e in d ictm e n t o r in f

o rm a tio n m a yc h a rg e a d e f e n d a n t in se p a ra te c o u n ts w i th 2 orm or e off

ens es i f the off

ens es char ged- - w hetherfel oni es or m i s demeanor s orboth- - ar e of the s ame ors i m i l archar act er , orar e bas ed on the s ame actortr ans act i on, orar e conne ct ed w i th orcons t i tut e part s of a5

comm on s cheme orpl an. F e d . R . C rim . P . 8 (a ). T h e o f f e n se s n e e d n o t b e id e n tica l to b e jo in e d ; itis s u f f icie n t if “ea ch w as comm i t t ed i n pur s ui tof the comm on s cheme char ged. ” U n itedS ta tes v . Sc o tt , 3 2 6 F . S u p p . 2 7 2 , 2 7 6 (W .D . P a . 1 9 7 1 ), a ff’d , 4 6 0 F .2 d 4 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 2 ). Jo in d e r is des i r abl e atthe tr i al l evel beca us e i t“pr om ot e[s ] economyof j udi ci al and pr os ecut or i al r es our ces . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. G or ecki , 8 1 3 F .2 d 4 0 , 4 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). W e conc l ude thatthe off ens es w er e s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar , a comm on pl an exi s t ed b e tw e e n th e m a n d , the re f o re , tha t th e yw e re p ro p e rlyjo in e d . A ll co u n ts re late d to r obber i es of the s ame busi nes s , bythe s ame defenda nt , even of the sam e cl erk , m e re lysix w e e k s a p a rt. H u d g in s ta rg e ted th e sa m e e sta b lish m e n t an d u se d a h a n d g u n in b o th rob b eries. I n d ee d , the o n lysu b stan ti al diff ere n ce in the sec o n d rob b eryw as F iel d s’s pr es ence . M or eover , fur therpr oof of a comm on pl an i s evi dence d byH udgi ns ’ s us e of Fi el ds ’ s name t o gai n entr ance t o t he s t or e dur i ng the fi r s tr obbery . T hi s i nform at i on w as notcont ai ned i n t he i ndi ctm ent , but , i n R ul e 8 mot i ons , court s m ayl ook bey ond the in d ic tm e n t f

o r i n f o rm a tio n th a t c la ri f

ie s f a c tu a l c o n n e c tio n s b e tw e e n th e c o u n ts . U ni t ed S ta tes v . M

c G ill , 9 6 4 F .2 d 2 2 2 , 2 4 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). A l t ernat i vel y , H udgi ns ar gues thatj oi ni ng the off ens es w as an abus e of di s cr et i on bythe D i s tr i ctC our tbeca us e j oi nderpr ej udi ced hi m . R ul e 14( a) s t at es that“i f the j oi nder of off ens es ordefe ndant s i n an i ndi ctm ent , an i nform at i on, ora cons ol i dat i on fortr i al appea r s t o pr ej udi ce a defe ndantorthe governm ent , the courtm ayor ders epar at e tr i al s of6

count s , s everthe def

endant s ' tr i al s , orpr ovi de anyotherr el i ef thatj us t i ce r equi r es . Fed. R . C rim . P . 1 4 (a ). F o r jo in d e r to b e p ro p e r, a ju rym u st re a so n a b lyb e e x p e c ted to c o m p a rt m e n ta liz e th e e v id e n c e f ro m th e s e p a ra te o f

f e n s e s . U ni t ed Stat es v. R ei cher t er , 647 F. 2d 397, 400 ( 3d C i r . 1981) . D efe ndant s beara “he avybur den” i n s how i ng p re ju d ic e f ro m jo in d e r. U

n itedS ta tes v . C o n so le , 13 F. 3d 641, 655 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T hey m u st de m o n str ate tha t j o ind er w il l r esu ltin a “ m an ifestl yu n fa irtr ial , b ey o n d a m ere s how i ng thathe w oul d have ha d a bett erchanc e of a cqui t t al w i th s epar at e tr i al s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sanes , 5 7 F .3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 1 -3 4 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). H udgi ns t akes i s s ue w i th j oi ni ng the off ens es beca us e he w i s hed t o t es t i fyabout the s econd r obberybutnotthe fi r s t . I n hi s br i ef, he al l udes t o pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om j oi nderon t hes e gr ounds . U l t i m at el y , though, H udgi ns ’ s ow n acqui tt al r ebut s thi s . T he D i s tr i ctC our ti ns truct ed the j uryt o cons i dereac h counts epar at el yand the j uryr eturned a ver di ctthatacqui t t ed H udgi ns of al l count s forthe fi r s tr obbery , w hi l e convi ct i ng hi m of three o f th e f

o u r co u n ts from the s ec o n d rob b ery . T h is ve rdict de m o n str ates tha t th e jury compar t m ent al i zed the evi dence and s epar at ed the off ens es . I f H udgi ns ’ s t es t i m ony conce rni ng the s econd r obberyhad t ai nt ed the j ury ’ s tr eatm entof the fi r s tr obbery , they w o u ld n o t hav e a cq u itted h im o f it . C o n clud ing that there w as p rejud ice, as H u d g ins’s b ri e f d o e s , ig n o re s th is re a lity. E ven had ther e bee n t w o t r i al s , evi dence fr om the fi r s tr obberycoul d have be en admi t t ed i n t he s econd r obberytr i al as pr oof of pl an and know l edge unde rFed. R . E vi d.7

4 0 4 (b ). W e h a v e u p h e ld d e n ia l o f s e v e ra n c e in m o re c o m p le x c a s e s . See e . g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 6 1 0 F .2 d 1 1 6 6 , 1 1 7 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 9 ) (h o ld in g se v e ra n c e u n n e c e ss a ryin a c a se in v o lv in g 3 1 se p a ra te b a n k f ra u d c h a rg e s); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C at ena , 500 F. 2d 1319, 1325- 26 ( 3d C i r . 1974) ( fi ndi ng no abus e of di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o s everover100 c o u n t s o f me d i c a r e f

r a u d ) . Byc o n tr a s t , th i s c a s e i s r e l a t i v e l ys i mp l e : two d e f e n d a n t s , t wo cr i m es , s i x count s . T he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on t o j oi n the off ens es p ro p e rl ya n d n o “ m a n if e s tly u n f a ir ” tr ia l r e s u lte d . I I . Se nt e nc i ng R evi ew of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence m us tfi r s tens ur e the courtcomm i t t ed no s ig n if ic a n t p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r a n d th e n c o n s id e r t h e s e n te n c e ’s re a s o n a b le n e s s . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t. 58 6 (2 0 0 7 ). H u d g in s a rg u e s h is s e n ten c e w a s p ro c e d u ra lly defi ci entbeca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notpr oper l ycons i derthe § 3553( a) fac t or s and thatthe courttr eat ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes as m andat ory . T he governm entar gues th a t th e c o u rt di d cons i derthe fa ct or s , al bei tbr i efl y , and, even s o, a det ai l ed cons i der at i on w as notnece s s aryas the courti m pos ed a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence . T he governm ent d o e s n o ta d d r e s s H u d g i n s ’ s a r g u m e n tth a tth e c o u r ttr e a t e d th e G u i d e l i n e s a s m a n d a t o r y, b u t o u r re v iew sh o w s n o su c h tre a tm e n t. T h e re f o re , w e h o ld th a t th e c o u rt a d e q u a tely c o n s id e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . E ach § 3553( a) fac t orneed notbe expl i ci t l yaddr es s ed i f the r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe courtt ook the fa ct or s i nt o acc ount , norm us ta courtcons i derar gum ent s l acki ng8

m e ri t. U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 4 9 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). M o reo v er, “ci r cumst ance s m ayw el l m ake c l earthatthe j udge r es t s hi s deci s i on upon the [ S e n te n c in g ] C o m m is s io n ’s o w n re a s o n in g th a t th e G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is . . . pr oper. . . . ” R i ta v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2468 ( 2007) . A tH udgi ns ’ s r es ent enci ng, aft erexpl i ci t l ym ent i oni ng he w oul d cons i derthe 3553( a) fac t or s , the D i s tr i ct C our tthen r efe r ence d t he vi ol entnatur e of H udgi ns ’ s cr i m es , hi s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory , i ncl udi ng m ul t i pl e r obber i es of el der l yvi ct i m s , and the nee d t o i m pr i s on hi m for a l engthyper i od of t i m e t o pr ot ectthe publ i c and r ehabi l i t at e hi m “forcorr ect i onal r eas ons . ” ( A pp. 65- 66) . T he courtthen cons i der ed the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange of 3 6 0 m o n ths to li fe fo r H u d g ins a n d im p o sed a se n tenc e w ith in tha t r an g e. T h e c o u rt ’s s ent ence , and ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, i ndi cat e a s uffi ci entcons i der at i on of the § 3553( a) f a c to rs . M or eover , contr aryt o H udgi ns ’ s pos i t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d nottr eatthe G ui del i nes as m andat ory . I n fac t , the courtw entoutof i t s w ayon the r ecor d t o cl ar i fyt he i s s ue w i th t he governm ent ’ s att orney , w ho s t at ed corr ect l ythat“the gui del i nes ar e a start ing p o int . . . [a ]nd fro m there , the 3 5 5 3 fa ctors d o h av e to b e c o n side red . ” (A p p . 4 3 . ) T he courtthen i m pos ed i t s s ent ence byw ei ghi ng b o th the G ui del i nes and the 3553( a) f a c to rs , th u s c o m m ittin g n o p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r. T he s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e, t oo. A di s tr i ctcourti s aw ar ded br oad s e n te n c in g d is c re tio n b e c a u s e o f th e irs u p e ri o r a c c e s s to th e f a c ts o f e a c h c a s e . G a ll , 1289

S . C t. a t 5 9 7 . A w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is m o re lik e ly to b e a re a s o n a b le o n e . U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 3 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A d d iti o n a lly , ap p e llate c o u rts gener al l yr es pectthe G ui del i nes , as they“r efl ecta r ough appr oxi m at i on of s ent ence s t hat m i ghtachi eve § 3553( a) ’ s obj ect i ves . ” R ita , 127 S. C t . at2468. T her e exi s tno p e rs u a s iv e re a s o n s h e re n o t to a c c o rd th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th is d is c re tio n . H udgi ns ’ s br i ef f

ai l s t o r ebutboth the court ’ s cons i der at i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s and i t s r eas onabl e i m pos i t i on of a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence . T he fa ctthat H udgi ns “onl y ” s t ol e pur s es and cha i ns does nothi ng t o l es s en the fa ctthathe s t ol e them fr om w eak a nd el der l yvi ct i m s and thos e unl i kel yt o r eportcr i m es , nott o m ent i on the fa ct thatH udgi ns comm i t t ed the pr es entr obber i es us i ng a handgun, and bea tand bound a s t or e cl erk. I n s um , H udgi ns , as hi s couns el acknow l edges , i s a ca r eeroffe nder . O ur r evi ew of the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our taddr es s ed H udgi ns ’ s ar gum ent s at s ent enci ng, adequa t el ycons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s , and i m pos ed a r eas onabl e, w ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill A F F IR M th e O rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt.