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 3-16-2010 

# U SA v . James O ' N e al-S lo ane 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 . 08-4362

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 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 . J ame s O ' N e al -S lo ane " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1715. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1715NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4362

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM ES O’ NEA L- SLOA NE, 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 forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 1- 03- cr - 00004- 001 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo A r gued O ct ober28, 2009 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F U E N T E S , and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 16, 2010)

_____ R onal d A . K r aus s ( A r gued) O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder H arr i s bur gh, PA l 7l 01 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant D ary l F. B l oom ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney H arr i s bur gh, PA l 7108 A t t orneyforA ppel l ee2 _____ OP I NI ON S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . B efor e us i s the appe al of J ames O ’ N eal - Sl oane f r om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der d e n y in g h is m o tio n se e k in g a re d u c tio n in h is s e n ten c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt re jec ted h is m ot i on fora r educt i on underA m endment706 t o the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , w hi ch pr ovi des fora r etr oact i ve tw o- l evel r educt i on i n the bas e off ens e l evel foroffe ns es in v o lv in g c ra c k c o c a in e u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (c ). See U . S. S. G . A pp. C , A m end. 706 ( N ov. 1, 2007) ( her eaf

t er , “A m endment706”) . H i s pr i nci pal ar gum enti s thatthe D i s tr i ct C our terr ed i n s ent enci ng hi m as a “c ar eeroffe nder ” underthe G ui del i nes . W e ar e not p e rs u a d e d . I . O ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s s ent ence fol l ow ed convi ct i ons fordi s tr i but i on and pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and forbei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of amm uni t i on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . B eca us e of O ’N eal -Sl oan e’s pri or st at e-courtcon vict i on s, the D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd that he w as a ca ree r of fe n d er, an d ca lculated a total of fe n se lev el of

3 7 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry o f V I. Itsen tenc ed O ’N ea l- S loan e to a term o f 3 6 0 m o n ths in p ri so n . S h o rt lythere af ter, O ’ N eal - Sl oane f

i l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt d e n ie d th a t m o tio n a n d th is c o u rt d e c lin e d to is s u e a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility.18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) provides: 1 in the ca se o f a d ef

en d an t w h o h as b ee n sen tenc ed to a term of i mpr i s o n me n t b a s e d o n a s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e th a thas s ubs equent l y been l ow er ed by the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . [§] 994( o) , upo n m ot i on of the d e f e n d a n t o r th e D ire c to r o f th e B u re a u o f P riso n s, o r o n its o w n m o t i on, the courtm ayr educe the t erm of im p riso n m e n t, af

ter c o n sid e rin g th e f

a c to rs s e t f

o rth in s ect i on 3553( a) t o the ext ent that they ar e appl i cabl e, i f s uch a re d u c tio n is c o n sis ten t w it h a p p lica b le p o licysta tem e n ts is s u e d b yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . W e re v iew a d istric t c o u rt’s u lti m a te d e c isio n w h e th e r to 2 gr antordenya def

endant ’ s m ot i on t o r educe hi s o r hers ent ence u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

at eo , 5 6 0 F . 3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 3 I n D ece m ber2007, the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on added G ui del i nes A m endment706 w h ic h re d u c e d th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l f

o r o f f e n s e s in v o lv in g c ra c k c o c a in e b ytw o le v e ls . I tl at eradded A m endment713 w hi ch made the bas e off ens e l evel r educt i ons r etr oact i ve b e g in n in g M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 8 , U .S .S .G . A p p . C , A m e n d . 7 1 3 (M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 8 ). See U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 .1 0 (c ). B a s e d o n A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 , O ’N e a l- S lo a n e f ile d a m o tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) to red u ce the s en tenc e f o r his cra ck co ca ine o ff en se, w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt 1 deni ed. T he or derdeny i ng thatm ot i on i s the s ubj ectof thi s appea l . T he G overnm ent

2 a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to re d u c e O ’N e a l-S lo a n e ’s p re v io u sly i m pos ed s ent ence . II. B eca us e O ’ N eal - Sl oane w as s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe nder , hi s s ent ence cannotbe4

r educe d underA m endment706 unl es s w e fi r s tdet erm i ne thathi s car eeroffe nders t atus w as err or . I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

at eo , 560 F. 3d 152, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , w e hel d that“the l ow er i ng of the bas e off ens e l evel under§ 2D 1. 1( c) has no eff ecton the appl i cat i on of the car eeroffe nderoffe ns e l evel . . . . ” N onethel es s , O ’ N eal - Sl oane a r gues that “[j ] ur i s di ct i on l i es [t o r econs i derhi s car eeroffe nders t atus i n a § 3582( c) ( 2) pr ocee di ng] b e c a u se [ h is] e n tit lem e n t to th e tw o -le v e l re d u c tio n f o r c ra c k o f

f e n se s . . . is in e x trica b ly b o u n d u p w ith th e m e ri ts o f h is s ta tu s a s c a re e r o f

f e n d e r.” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 4 -2 5 . H ow ever , al though 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) i s the mechani s m byw hi ch a pr i s onerm ay seek t o h ave h i s sent ence redu ced b ecause o f a retroact i ve am end m ent t o the G uidel i nes, di s tr i ctcourt s have no a uthor i ty“t o r econs i der[thei r ] pr i ordet erm i nat i on t o appl ythe car eeroffe ndergui del i nes . . . . ” M a te o , 560 F. 3d at156. A s not ed i n Mat eo , adopt i ng O ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s cont ent i on w oul d contr avene the s ta tu to ry te x t. I

d. Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) s t at es thatanys ent ence m odi fi cat i on m us tbe “cons i s t entw i th appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” T he rel evan tG uidel i nes po l i cyst at em ent, as r evis ed af t er A m end m ent 706, r equ i res a c o u rt to det erm i ne the amended gui del i ne r ange thatw oul d have be en appl i cabl e t o the d e f e n d a n t if th e a m e n d m e n t(s) to th e g u id e lin e s listed in su b se c tio n (c ) h a d b e e n in eff ectatthe t i m e the def

endantw as s ent ence d. I n m ak ing su ch det erm i nat i on, t he court s h all su b s t i tut e onl y the amendm ent s l i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) fort he corr es pondi ng gui del i ne pr ovi s i ons thatw er e appl i ed w hen the defe ndantw as s ent ence d and s hal ll eave al lothergui del i ne appl i cat i on decis i ons unaf f ected .5

U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (b)(1 ) (em p h ase s ad d ed ). T he pr ocedur e ava i l abl e fora mot i on forr educt i on i n s ent ence bas ed on a d e f e n d a n t’ s e rr o n e o u s d e s ig n a tio n a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r i s p ro v id e d b y2 8 U .S .C . § 2255( a) , r atherthan by18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . Sect i on 2255( a) , pr ovi des thata “pr i s oner i n cus t odyunders ent ence of a c our tes t abl i s hed byA ctof C ongr es s cl ai m i ng . . . thatt he s ent ence w as i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on of the . . . l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . . . , m aym ove the courtw hi ch i m pos ed the s ent ence t o vaca t e, s etas i de orcorr ectthe s ent ence . ” O ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s pr i orm ot i on under§ 2255 w as uns ucce s s ful . B efor e a s ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on m aybe cons i der ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , i tm us tbe ce r t i fi ed by a thr ee j udge pane l of the courtof appe al s t o cont ai n: ( 1) new l ydi s cover ed evi dence that , i f prove n and vi ew ed i n l i ght of t he evi dence as a w hol e, w oul d be s uffi ci ent to establ i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatno r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have f ound the movantgui l tyof the off ens e; or ( 2) a new rul e of cons t i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew by th e S u p re m e C o u rt , th a t w a s p re v io u s ly u n a v a ila b le . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 (h )( 1 )- (2 ). N e ith e r p ro v is io n p e rt a in s h e re . S e e In re D o rs a in v il , 119 F. 3d 245, 247- 48 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( r ej ect i ng ar gum ent s thata new j udi ci al opi ni on cons t i tut es new l ydi s cover ed evi dence and thatthe Supr eme C our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a c ri m in a l s ta tu te c o n s titu te s a n e w ru le o f c o n s titu tio n a l la w ). O ’N ea l- S loan e c o n tend s tha t eve n if h e c an n o t m ak e a sec o n d m o ti o n u n d er § 2255, the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have c ons trued hi s m ot i on as a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 a n d th e “ s a f e tyv a l v e ” c l a u s e o f

2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 ( e ) , wh i c h weI n hi s br i ef, O ’ N eal - Sl oane a l s o ar gued thatthe D i s tr i ct 3 C ou rtcou l d h ave co nst rued his m oti on un d e r § 3 5 8 2(c) (2) as a p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of

c o ra m n o b is. A t oral arg u m en t, h o w ev er, O ’ N eal - Sl oane s t at ed thr ough couns el thathe w as abandoni ng that th e o r y, a c k n o w l e d g i n g th a t th e w r i t o f c o r a m n o b i s “ d o e s n ’ ta p p l y” t o t hi s cas e. T r . of O r al A r gum entat22. 6 i nt erpr et ed i n In re D o rs a in v il . 119 F. 3d at249. O ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s r el i ance on our 3 deci s i on i n In re D o rs a in v ili s m i s pl ace d. I n thatcas e, w e not ed thatthe s afe ty - val ve coul d be us ed onl yi f § 2255 i s “i nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve t o t es tthe l egal i tyof [a pr i s oner ’ s ] det ent i on. ” In re D o rs a in v il , 1 1 9 F .3 d a t 2 5 1 (q u o tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 (e )) . T hatw as the s i tuat i on i n In re D o rs a in v il , w her e the pet i t i onerw as i n an “unus ual p o sitio n ” a s a p riso n e r w h o , w ith o u t th e sa f e ty -v a lv e , w o u ld h a v e h a d n o o p p o rtu n ityto c h a llen g e h is c o n v ictio n f o r a c rim e th a t an in ter v e n in g c h a n g e in su b sta n tiv e law c o u ld n e g a te w ith re tr o a c tiv e a p p lic a tio n . I d. W her eas the pet i t i oneri n In re D o rs a in v ilm ayhave be en conf i ned forconductt he Supr eme C our tl at erdeemed nott o be cr i m i nal , O ’ N eal - Sl oane ha s no s i m i l arcl ai m and ther e i s no doubtthathi s confi nementi s l aw ful . H i s s i tuat i on i s ther efor e unl i ke that pr es ent ed i n In re D o rs a in v ilw hi ch turned on the “c om pl et e mi s carr i age of j us t i ce” p re s e n te d b yth e e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th a t c a s e . I d. at251 ( quot i ng D avis v. U ni t ed Stat es , 41 7 U . S . 33 3, 34 6-47 (19 74 )) . A rguably , an incorr ectcl assi fi cat i on as a car eeroffe nderw oul d be a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce butO ’ N eal - Sl oane doe s notpr es ent s u c h a c a s e .P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s s im p le a ss a u lt statu te, 1 8 P a . C o n s. S tat. 4 A n n . § 2 7 0 1 , sa y s, in re lev a n t p a rt: A per s on i s gui l tyof as s aul ti f he: ( 1) att empt s t o caus e ori nt en ti o n al l y , know i ngl yor rec k lesslyca u ses b o d il yinjuryto an o ther; (2 ) n e g lig e n tlyc a u se s b o d ily in ju ry to a n o th e r w ith a d e a d ly w eapon; ( 3) att empt s by p h y sical m enac e t o putanotheri n fea rof i m m i nents er i ous bodi l yi nj ury ; or ( 4) conce al s or att empt s t o conce al a hypoderm i c nee dl e on hi s per s on and i nt ent i onal l yorknow i ngl ypenetr at es a l aw enfor cementoffi ceroran offic eroran empl oy ee of a corr ect i onal i ns t i tut i on, countyj ai l o r pri s on, det ent i on fac i l i ty or m ent al hos pi t al dur i ng the cour s e of an arr es tor a n ys e a rc h o f

th e p e rs o n . 7 U nder l y i ng O ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s cl as s i fi cat i on as a ca r eeroffe nderi s hi s 2001 c o n v ic tio n f

o r s im p le a s s a u lt u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia la w . U n d e r t h e P e n n s y lv a n ia s ta tu te , a p erso n is gu il tyo f sim p le assa u ltif h e “ inten ti o n all y , k n o w ing lyo r re c k les sly caus es bodi l yi nj uryt o another . . . . ” See 1 8 P a. C o n s. S tat . A n n . § 2 7 0 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). A 4 ca ree r of fe n d er m u st ha v e h ad “a t l ea st tw o p ri o r fe lon yco n v ict ion s o f e ith er a cr i m e of vi ol ence o r a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e .” U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 (a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). U nderthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , a cr i m e of vi ol ence i s an off ens e puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y earthathas as an el ement , i nt eral i a, “the us e of .

. . ph y si cal force againstthe p ers on of an other ” or “i nv olves cond uct that pr esent s a s e ri o u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a n o th e r.” U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .2 (a )( 1 )- (2 ). I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 587 F. 3d 203, 208- 09 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , w e cons i der ed w hethera convi ct i on of s i m pl e as s aul ti n Penns y l vani a s houl d be tr eat ed as a convi ct i on8

of a c r i m e of vi ol ence . W e ac cept ed the G overnm ent ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of B egay v . U ni t ed Stat es , 55 3 U . S . 13 7 (200 8), as holdi ng that a cr i m e i nv olvi ng neg l i gen tor r eckles s c o n d u c t w a s n o t a c ri m e o f v io le n c e f

o r c a re e r o f

f e n d e r p u rp o s e s . Johns on , 587 F. 3d at 210- 11. O n t he otherhand, w e hel d thati f the conduc tw as i nt ent i onal orknow i ng, the c o n v ic tio n u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s s im p le a s s a u lt s ta tu te is a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . Johns on , 5 8 7 F .3 d a t 2 1 0 -1 1 . T he r el evantfac t s aboutO ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s 2001 s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on ar e s et f o rt h in th e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p e ri o r C o u rt ’s o p in io n a f f ir m in g th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. C om m onw eal th v. O ’

N eal- Sl oan , N o. 01698M D A 01 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2002) . H e w as char ged w i th punchi ng hi s gi r l fr i end i n the ey e and c aus i ng abr as i ons on herknees and e lb o w s . I

d. a t 6 . A lth o u g h h e d e n ie d th e c h a rg e , th e ju ry f o u n d h im g u ilty. I

d. at 7-8 ( quot i ng the tr i al court ’ s fi ndi ng thatO ’ N eal - Sl oane “ know i ngl ycaus ed bodi l yi nj uryt o” h is g irlfr ien d ); s ee al

s o Shepar d v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13, 26 ( 2005) ( perm i t t i ng reli an ce o n ex p ress f

ind ing s b ythe tri al j u d g e in d eterm ining w h ethe r a p ri o r st ate-co u rt convi ct i on i s a vi ol entfel ony ) . I tfol l ow s thatO ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s s i m pl e as s aul tw as inten ti o n al an d thu s a c ri m e o f v iolen ce u n d er Johns on . See 5 8 7 F . 3 d at 21 2 (“[ A ]n i nt ent i onal orknow i ng vi ol at i on of [Penns y l vani a’ s s i m pl e as s aul ts t atut e] i s a cr i m e of v io len c e u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .2 (a )(2 ).”) . In lig h t o f th e c o n d u c t u n d e rly in g O ’N e a lSl oane’ s s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on, w hi ch s at i s fi es the cr i m e of vi ol ence r equi r ementfor classifica ti o n as a ca ree r of fe n d er, w e f

ind n o m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce in the D istri ct C o u rt ’sd e c is io n to im p o s e O ’N e a l- S lo a n e ’s o ri g in a l s e n te n c e . III . Forthe above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng O ’ N eal - Sl oane’ s m ot i on t o r educe hi s s ent ence .

9