2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-22-2010

USA v. Antione Chambers

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1302

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Antione Chambers" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 222.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/222
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

No. 10-1302

______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANTOINE CHAMBERS,

a/k/a “Twiz”

Antoine Chambers, 

 Appellant

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 09-cr-00133-001)

Honorable William W. Caldwell, District Judge

______________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 18, 2010

BEFORE: AMBRO, FISHER, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed: November 22, 2010)

______________

OPINION OF THE COURT

______________

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal from a judgment of 

conviction and sentence entered in the District Court on January 14, 2009, predicated on 
2

appellant Antoine Chambers’ plea of guilty to an information charging him with use of a

communication facility to facilitate drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). 

The information replaced a two-count indictment charging Chambers with conspiracy to 

distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and the unlawful distribution and 

possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The

District Court sentenced Chambers as a career offender to a custodial term of 46 months 

at the top of his 37- to 46-month guidelines range, to be followed by a three-year term of 

supervised release. In addition, it imposed a $500 fine and a $100 special assessment. 

The judgment of conviction and sentence, however, also dismissed the indictment.

Chambers’ first contention on this appeal is that the District Court erred in 

classifying him as a career offender, thereby enhancing his custodial guidelines range 

from the 15- to 21-month period that it would have been without the career offender 

designation. This contention centers on the circumstance that one of the two underlying 

convictions needed for the career offender designation was a state conviction based on a 

guilty plea to conspiracy to commit a burglary. Chambers contends that the District 

Court should not have treated this conviction as a crime of violence for career offender 

purposes. In this regard, Chambers argues that the Court erred “by failing to consider the 

facts underlying the burglary conviction”, appellant’s br. at 13, and that those facts “were 

more consistent with the [nonviolent] crime of receiving stolen property,” id., than

burglary and thus could not support a finding that the offense could be used as a predicate 

offense in a career offender determination. Chambers’ second contention is that the 

District Court acted unreasonably in imposing a sentence of 46 months because it failed 
3

to address relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that should have 

resulted in it imposing a lesser sentence.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Inasmuch as the District 

Court rejected Chambers’ first contention on the legal basis that it could not look at the 

facts underlying the burglary conviction in making its career offender determination, we 

will exercise plenary review of that issue. See United States v. Lennon, 372 F.3d 535, 

538 (3d Cir. 2004); United States v. Mackins, 218 F.3d 263, 266 (3d Cir. 2000). We will 

consider Chambers’ second contention, which involves consideration of the procedural 

and substantive reasonableness of the sentence, on an abuse of discretion basis. See

United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir. 2010); United States v. Levinson, 

543 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2008). 

There is no question that viewing the state burglary conviction solely on the basis 

of its statutory elements and taking into consideration that, as Chambers explains in his 

brief, the burglary was of a residence, the burglary, and thus the conspiracy to commit it,

was a crime of violence for career offender purposes. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a); U.S.S.G. §

4B1.2. Though U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) provides that if an offender’s criminal history 

category substantially over-represents the seriousness of his criminal history or the 

likelihood that he will commit other crimes, a downward departure may be warranted, 

such a departure would not change the fact that a conviction for a crime of violence in the 

offender’s history would remain a predicate offense for a career offender determination. 

After all, a departure from a range does not require a modification of the range. 
4

Chambers nevertheless contends that, based on the actual facts, his conspiracy offense 

“should have been classified as receiving stolen property.” Appellant’s br. at 12. Such 

an offense would not be for a crime of violence and thus would not be a predicate career 

offender underlying offense. But it is perfectly clear that the District Court correctly used 

the categorical approach as our precedents required it to do in its treatment of the state 

burglary conviction. See United States v. Siegel, 477 F.3d 87, 90-91 (3d Cir. 2007). 

Thus, we reject Chambers’ first contention.

We have considered Chambers’ second contention and see no basis on which to 

sustain it. The contention does not require protracted discussion, as the District Court did 

not abuse its discretion procedurally or substantively in imposing a sentence within the 

appropriately calculated guidelines range. 

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on 

January 14, 2007, will be affirmed.