15-20 19

Unite d Sta tes v . Mel ville



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C O URT O F A P P EA L S F O R T H E S E C O

ND C I R C U I T 

## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I N G S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E C E D E N T I A

L E F FE C T . C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R U L E O F A P PE L L

A T E P R O C E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R U L E 32.1.1. WHE N C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D O C U M E N T F I L E D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N

D I X OR A

N E L E C T R O N I C DA T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I N G A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S E N T E D B Y C OU

N S E L . 1 At a state d ter m of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, 4 on th e 20 day of De cembe r, tw o tho usand sixt een. th 5 6 PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS, 7 JOSÉ A. CA BRANE S, 8 BARRI NGTOND. PARKER , 9 Circu it Ju dges, 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITE D STA TES O F AME RICA, 12 Appel lee, 13 14 15 -v.- 15-20 19 16 17 HUGNE L AND RE, A KA HU GZ, 18 Defen dant 19 20 COURT NEY MELVIL LE, A KA TR IX, 21 Defen dant- Appel lant 22 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 24 25 26 FOR A PPELLANT: ANTHO NY L. RICC O, Ne w Yor k, Ne w 27 York (Stev en Le gon, on th e 28 brief ).

11 2 FOR A PPELL EE: JO AN N M. NAVIC KAS, for R obert 3 L. Ca pers, Unit ed St ates 4 Attor ney f or th e Eas tern 5 Distr ict o f New York (Kev in 6 Trowe l, on the brief ). 7 8 Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct 9 Court for the E aster n Dis trict of N ew Yo rk (R oss, J.). 10 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED 11 AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be 12 AFFIR

MED . 13 Court ney M elvil le ap peals fromthe judgm ent o f the 14 Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt f or th e Eas tern Distr ict o f New 15 York (Ross , J.) deny ing h is mo tion to wi thdra w his guil ty 16 plea to an 18 U .S.C. § 92 4(c) count and sente ncing him to 17 108 m onths of i mpris onmen t. W e ass ume t he pa rties ’ 18 famil iarit y wit h the unde rlyin g fac ts, t he pr ocedu ral 19 histo ry, a nd th e iss ues p resen ted f or re view. We a ffirm 20 becau se Me lvill e’s p lea a llocu tion was s uffic ient to 21 estab lish aidin g and abet ting liabi lity for t he § 924(c ) 22 count and becau se a waive r bar s his appe al of the sente nce. 23 Melvi lle p leade d gui lty t o one coun t of Hobbs Act 24 robbe ry an d one coun t of using or c arryi ng a firea rm in 25 conne ction with that robb ery. 18 U .S.C. § 19 51 (H obbs Act); 26 18 U. S.C. § 924 (c) ( use o f a w eapon ). T he § 924(c ) cou nt in 27 the i ndict ment charg ed hi m bot h wit h the subs tanti ve of fense

21 and w ith a iding and abett ing t he of fense purs uant to 18 2 U.S.C . § 2 . He was also charg ed wi th (b ut di d not plea d 3 guilt y to) one count of c onspi racy to co mmit the r obber y. 4 After plea ding guilt y, Me lvill e mov ed to with draw his 5 plea to th e § 9 24(c) coun t, ar guing that the facts addu ced 6 at th e all ocuti on we re in suffi cient to e stabl ish h is gu ilt. 7 The u ndisp uted facts elic ited at Me lvill e’s a llocu tion were: 8 1) th at Me lvill e did not carry a gu n on his p erson in 9 conne ction with the robbe ry; a nd 2) that one of Me lvill e’s 10 fello w rob bers did c arry a gun in c onnec tion with the 11 robbe ry. Melvi lle a rgued that he c ould not b e hel d 12 crimi nally liab le fo r the use of a gun b y one of h is fe llow 13 robbe rs un der a Pink erton theo ry be cause he h ad ne ither 14 plead ed gu ilty to no r bee n con victe d of a con spira cy ch arge. 15 See P inker ton v . Uni ted S tates , 328 U.S. 640 (1946 ). T he 16 distr ict c ourt held that he co uld b e con victe d und er 17 Pinke rton despi te th e lac k of a con spira cy co nvict ion o r 18 plea. The motio n to withd raw t he gu ilty plea was a ccord ingly 19 denie d. 20 Both parti es ob serve that the Pinke rton quest ion 21 prese nted is a novel one in th e Sec ond C ircui t, but we ne ed 1

The q uesti on wo uld s eem t o be answe red i n Pac elli v. 1 Unite d Sta tes, 588 F .2d 3 60, 3 67 (2 d Cir . 197 8) (“ [T]he Pinke rton ratio nale makes all partn ers i n the ente rpris e respo nsibl e for the acts of th e oth ers i n car rying it o ut, 31 not r each it be cause we c an af firm on si mpler grou nds. 2 Unite d Sta tes v . Cra mer, 777 F .3d 5 97, 6 03 (2 d Cir . 201 5) 3 (“[W] e are free to a ffirma de cisio n on any g round s 4 suppo rted in th e rec ord, even if it is n ot on e on which the 5 trial cour t rel ied.” ) (ci tatio ns om itted ). M elvil le pl eaded 6 guilt y to a § 9 24(c) coun t in the i ndict ment that expre ssly 7 charg ed hi m und er th e aid ing a nd ab ettin g sta tute, and his 8 alloc ution esta blish ed th at he met the t wo re quire ments for 9 aidin g and abet ting a § 9 24(c) viol ation . Fi rst, he to ok an 10 affir mativ e act in f urthe rance of t he cr ime b y par ticip ating 11 in th e rob bery itsel f. R osemo nd v. Unit ed St ates, 134 S. 12 Ct. 1 240, 1247 (2014 ) (ho lding that part icipa tion in th e 13 under lying crim e is suffi cient to f ulfil l the act 14 requi remen t for aidi ng an d abe tting a § 924(c ) vio latio n). 15 Secon d, he had advan ce kn owled ge th at on e his fell ow ro bbers 16 would carr y a g un du ring the r obber y. I d. at 1249 . Be cause 17 the p lea a llocu tion provi ded t he ne cessa ry fa ctual pred icate 18 for M elvil le’s liabi lity, the distr ict c ourt did n ot er r in 19 denyi ng hi s mot ion t o wit hdraw the guilt y ple a. S ee Un ited 20 State s v. Rosen , 409 F.3d 535, 546 (2d C ir. 2 005). 21 Melvi lle a lso c halle nges his s enten ce of 108 month s; 22 but h is pl ea ag reeme nt wa ived any r ight to ap peal a sen tence

wheth er a consp iracy is c harge d or not. ”) (e mphas is ad ded).

41 of 11 7 mon ths o r les s. T hat w aiver is v alid and b ars h is 2 appea l. U nited Stat es v. Pear son, 570 F .3d 4 80, 4 85 (2 d 3 Cir. 2009) (per curi am). 4 For t he fo regoi ng re asons , and find ing n o mer it in 5 Melvi lle’s othe r arg ument s, we here by AFFIR M the j udgme nt of 6 the d istri ct co urt. 7 8 9 FOR T HE CO URT: 10 CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK 11

5