FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Dec . 22, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Nos . 08 -1 54 27 , 08 -1 54 28
, 08 -1 54 29 , 08 -1 54 30
, 08 -1 54 31 , 08 -1 54 32 08 -1 54 33

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et Nos . 95 -0 02 84 -CR- ODE-1-1 95 -0 04 39 -CR- ODE-1-1 , 95 -0 04 40 -CR- ODE-1-1
, 95 -0 04 41 -CR- ODE-1-1 , 95 -0 04 42 -CR- ODE-1-1 95 -0 04 43 -CR- ODE-1-1 , 08 -0 00 72 -CR- 01 -WBH-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

W AYNE AL LEN DAN IEL,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 22 , 20 09 )

Befo re BLACK, WILSON and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:W ay ne All en Dan ie l ap pe al s th e se nt en ce im po se d fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty pl ea to

ba nk r o b b e ry

. He al so ap pe al s hi s co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ces im po se d in ot he r cas es

fo ll owi ng th e rev oc at io n of hi s supe rv ise d re le as e. W e ha ve co ns ol id at ed th e ap pe al s.

W e affi rm th e se nt en ces im po se d fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W e

va cat e th e se nt en ce fo r th e b an k ro bb ery an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g.

I. Back gr ou nd an d P ro ced ur al His to ry

In 19 95
, Dan ie l pl ead ed gu il ty to s e v e r al co un ts of ba nk ro bb ery. He was

se nt en ced to co nc ur ren t te rm s of 17 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d th ree y ears

su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r eac h o f th e co nv ic ti on s. Dani el was re le as ed fro m pri so n i n 1

Decem be r 20 07 an d be ga n th e te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. A few week s la te r, he was

arre st ed fo r Driv in g Und er th e In flu en ce (“ DUI ” ) i n C a t oo sa Co un ty, Geo rg ia

.

Dan ie l po st ed bo nd
, an d an arra ig nm en t in th e DUI cas e was sc he du le d fo r Feb ru ary

7, 20 08
, in th e Pro ba te Co ur t of Cat oo sa Co un ty. On Ja nu ary 31
, 20 08
, he ro bb ed a

ba nk , wa s arre st ed in th e ba nk pa rk in g lo t, an d was ta ke n i n t o f e d e r a l cu st od y

. He

Daniel was char g ed with eig ht counts of bank robber y in the Norther

n District of Geor g ia 1 (No. 08-15427); two counts of bank robber y in the Norther

n District of I llinois (No. 08-15428); one count of bank robber

y in the District of Delaw are (No. 08-15429); one count of bank robber y in the District of Maryland (No. 08-15430); one count of bank robber y in the Southern District of Geor g ia (No. 08-15431); and one count of bank robber y in the Easter

n District of L ouisiana (No. 08-15432). Daniel pleade d g uilty to two counts of bank robber y in the Norther

n District of Geor g ia and all
counts from other jurisdictions. These convictions wer e consolidated for sentenc ing. Case numbers here in refe r to ca se numbers on a ppeal.

2was in fed eral cu st od y on Feb ru ary 7, 20 08 an d di d no t at te nd hi s sc he du le d

arra ig nm en t i n t he DUI cas e. So , hi s b on d was for fei te d.

Dan ie l was ch arg ed by in di ct m en t fo r t h e 2 0 0 8 ba nk ro bb ery an d pl ead ed

gu il ty. (No

. 08 -1 54 33 .) Ju dg e Hun t of th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia acce pt ed th e
pl ea an d se nt en ced Dan ie l. Fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es , t he c o u r t c on si de red th e bo nd

fo rfei tu re in th e DUI cas e a co nv ic ti on

. I t c o n c l ud ed Dan ie l’s cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y was V, y ie ld in g a g u i d e l i n e s ran ge of se ve nt y to ei gh ty-sev en m on th s

im pr is on m en t. If th e bo nd fo rfei tu re ha d no t be en co ns id ered a co nv ic ti on , Dan ie l’s

cri m in al hi st or y c a t e g o r y wo ul d ha ve be en IV, y ie ld in g a gu id el in es ran ge of fiftyse ve n to se ve nt y -o ne m on th s— si xt een fewer m on th s at th e to p of th e gu id el in e range.

Afte r co ns id eri ng th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , th e co ur t s en te nc ed Dani el to

ei gh ty-sev en m on th s i m

pr is on m en t.

Fo ll owi ng se nt en ci ng in th e ba nk rob be ry cas e, Ju dg e Eva ns of t he Nor th ern

Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia rev ok ed Dan ie l’s s u p erv is ed rel eas e in si x pr io r cas es an d

im po se d se n t e n c e s req ui rin g th at he se rv e, in th e ag gr eg at e, fo rty-eig ht m on th s

im pr is on m en t. The se se nt en ces were to be se rv ed co ns ecu ti ve ly to th e ba nk ro bb ery

se nt en ce i m

po se d b y Ju dg e Hun t.

At se nt en ci ng fo r th e 20 08 ba nk ro bb ery of fen se , Dan ie l ob

jecte d to th e bo nd

fo rfei tu re’s in cl us io n in th e cri m in al hi st or y cal cu la ti on

. He al so ob jecte d to th e

3su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of bo th th e ba nk ro bb ery se nt en ce a n d t h e se nt en ces

im po se d fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e.

II. Is su es on App eal an d C on te nt io ns of t he Part ie s

Fi rs t, we co ns id er whe th er th e bo nd fo rfei tu r e i n th e DUI cas e sh ou ld be

co ns id ered a co nv ic ti on for pu rp os es of c al cu la ti ng Dani el ’s c riminal hi st or y in th e

20 08 ba nk ro bb ery cas e. The Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th at un de r Geo rg ia la w, a bo nd

fo rfei tu re is co ns id ered a co nv ic ti on , an d th eref o r e i t s ho ul d be fact or ed in to th e

cri m in al hi st or y cal cu la ti on

. Dan ie l co un te rs th at th e bo nd fo rfei tu re in th is cas e was

in vo lu nt ary. He was in fed eral cu st od y on th e da te hi s arrai gn m en t in th e DUI cas e

was sc he du le d, a n d h e co nt en ds th at hi s fed eral cu st od ia ns di d no t pe rm it hi m to

at te nd

. Dan ie l arg ue s th at in vo l u n t ary bo nd fo rfei tu res are no t co nv ic ti on s un de r

Geo rg ia la w, so th e fo rfei tu re in th is cas e sh ou ld no t fact or in to hi s cri m in al hi st or y

.

Seco nd
, we co ns id er whe th er th e se nt en ce im po se d fo r th e 20 08 ba nk ro bb ery

co nv ic ti on an d th e se nt en ces im po se d fo ll owi ng th e rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e

were su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. Dan ie l arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce fo r th is ba nk ro bb ery

co nv ic ti on was un reas on ab le be cau se th e co ur t d id no t tak e in to acco un t m it ig at in g

fact or s. He co nt en ds th at th e se nt e n c e s i n t h e rev oc at io n cas es were un reas on ab le

be cau se th ey ex ceed ed th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge

. The Gov ern m en t co un te rs th at

al l se nt en ces were wit hi n th e gu id el in es an d were reas on ab le gi ve n Dan ie l’s cri m in al

4hi st or y an d th e fact th at th e 20 08 ba nk ro bb ery was co m m it te d le ss th an two m on th s

aft er Dan ie l was rel eas ed fro m cu st od y

.

III. St an da rd of R ev ie w

W e rev ie w th e ap pl ic at io n of the se nt en ci ng gu id el in es to a gi ve n set of fact s

de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Gar ey , 54 6 F.3 d 13 59
, 13 61 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). W e rev ie w

th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d S t at es
v. Pug h , 51 5 F .3d 11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

IV. Dis cu ss io n

W e fi rs t ad dr es s wh et he r th e bo nd fo rfei tu re in t he DUI cas e sh ou ld co un t as

a co nv ic ti on fo r cal cu la ti ng Dan ie l’s cri m in al hi st or y

. In Uni te d St at es v. St re vel
, we

he ld th at be cau se Geo rg ia la w co ns id ers a bo nd fo rfei tu re a co nv ic ti on , it sh ou ld be

co ns id ered a co nv ic ti on fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng cri m in al hi st or y un de r th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. 85 F.3 d 5 0 1
, 5 0 1 ( 1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (ci ti ng Co fe r v. Cr ow el l
,

24 7 S.E.2d 15 2, 15 4 (Ga. Ct

. App

. 19 78 )). Se e al so O.C.G.A. § 40 -5 -1 (6 ) (in cl ud in g

a fo rfei tu re of ba il in th e de fin it io n of “ co nv ic ti on ”). Bu t, St re vel di d no t co ns id er an

in vo lu nt ary bo nd fo rfei tu re. Geo rg ia la w pr ov id e s th at “ [n ]o jud gm en t sh al l be

ren de red on a fo rfei tu re of an y ap pe aran ce bo nd if it is sh own to th e sa ti sf act io n of

th e co ur t th at th e pr in ci pa l on th e bo nd was pr ev en te d fro m at te nd in g bec au se he or

5sh e was de ta in ed by reas on of arre st , se nt en ce, or co nf in em en t

. . . .” O.C.G.A. § 17

-

6- 72 (b ).

Geo rg ia bo nd f

or fei tu res are ge ne ral ly co ns id ered co nv ic ti on s un de r th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es be cau se th ey are ad m is si on s of gu il t. Se e O.C.G.A. § 40 -1 3- 58

(p ro vi di ng th at a bo nd fo rfei tu re sh al l be co ns tru ed a s a n ad m is si on of gu il t); U.S.

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s M a n u a l § 4A1 .2(a ) (2 00 8) (d efi ni ng pr io r se nt en ce as a

se nt en ce im

po se d up on gu il ty pl ea, tri al
, or pl ea of no lo co nt en de re ). Geo rg ia co ur ts ,

ho wev er, con cl ud e th at in vo lu nt ary bo nd fo rfei tu res are no t adm is si on s o f gu il t. In

How ar d v. La

y , fo r ex am

p l e , th e Geo rg ia Co ur t of App eal s fo un d th at a bo nd

fo rfei tu re was no t ad m is si bl e in a ci vi l cas e as an ad m is si on whe re th e de fen da nt was

no t aware of th e co ur t da te or is su an ce of a ci ta ti on

. 57 7 S.E.2d 75
, 77 (Ga. Ct

. App

.

20 03 ). Als o, i n Ben eke v. Par ker , th e Geo rg ia Co ur t o f App eal s s ta te d i n d ic ta th at

“ a kn ow in g bo nd fo rfei tu re

. . . is an ad m is si on of gu il t.” 66 7 S.E.2d 97
, 99 n.3 (Ga.

Ct

. App

. 20 08 ) (ci ti n g O .C.G.A. § 40 -1 3- 58 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Thi s st at em en t

im pl ie s th at an un kn owi ng or in vo lu nt ary bo nd fo rfei tu re is no t an ad m is si on of gu il t.

W hi le Geo rg ia tre at s a w i l l f ul bo nd fo rfei tu re as an ad m is si on of gu il t an d

co ns id ers it a co nv ic ti on , Geo rg ia la w pr ov id es a fo rfei tu re ex cep ti on whe re a fai lu re

to ap pe ar in co ur t is th e res ul t of de te nt io n in a pe na l in st it ut io n. And
, an in vo lu nt ary

bo nd fo rfei tu re is no t an ad m is si on of gu il t, ev en if it is no t ch al le ng ed di rect ly in th e

6cas e fo r whi ch bo nd was po st ed

. Se e How ar d
, 57 7 S.E.2d at 77 ( c on cl ud in g bo nd

fo rfei tu re was no t an ad m is si on of gu il t whe re is su e was fir st r a i s e d in a ci vi l

ne gl ig en ce ca se ). Becau se an in vo lu nt ary bo nd for fei tu re re su lt in g from de te nt io n

in a pe na l in st it ut io n is no t an adm is si on of gu il t un de r Geo rg ia la w, we co nc lu de it

is no t a c on vi ct io n a s d efi ne d b y § 4 A1.2 (a) o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

.

Thi s cas e do es no t in vo lv e, as th e Gov ern m en t arg ue s, a co ll at eral at ta ck on th e

va li di ty of a pr io r co nv ic ti on

. Se e Cu st is v. Uni te d St at es , 51 1 U.S. 48 5, 48 7, 11 4 S.

Ct

. 17 32
, 17 34 (1 99 4) (h ol di ng th at a de fen da nt m ay no t co ll at eral ly a t t a c k p rio r

co nv ic ti on s ot he r th an th os e ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of th e rig ht to co un se l). Rat he r, we

co ns id er whe th er Geo rg ia la w tre at s a bo nd fo rfei tu re as a co nv i c t i o n whe re th e

fo rfei tu re is th e res ul t of an in vo lu nt ary fai lu re to at te nd a co u r t h e a r in g du e to

co nf in em en t i n fe de ral cu st od y . W e co nc lu de th at it do es no t.

The bo nd f

o rfei tu re in th is cas e sh ou ld no t fact or in to th e cal cu la ti on of

Dan ie l’s crim in al hi st or y if hi s fail ur e to at te nd th e Feb ru ary 20 08 arra ig nm en t was

i nv ol un ta ry

. It was in vo lu nt ary if he was no t affo rd ed a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty t o

at te nd th e arra ig nm en t. The di st ric t co ur t, as su m in g th at al l Geo rg ia bo nd fo rfei tu res

sh ou ld be co ns id ered co nv ic ti on s fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng cri m in al hi st or y un de r

t h e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , di d no t de te rm in e whe th er Dan ie l’s fai lu re to at t e n d t h e

arra ig nm en t was wil lfu l or i n v o l un ta ry

. It di d no t affo rd Dan ie l th e op po rtu ni ty to

7pr es en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nt en ti on th at hi s fed eral cu st od ia ns di d no t pe rm it

hi m to at te nd th e sc he du le d arra ig nm en t. The refo re, we va cat e Dan ie l’s se nt en ce fo r

th e ba nk ro bb ery co nv ic ti on an d rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g, at whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t

sh ou ld de te rm in e whe th er Dan ie l’s fa il ur e to att en d t he sch ed ul ed arra ig nm en t was

wil lfu l o r in vo lu nt ary.

Dan ie l al so ch al le ng es th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d

fo r th e 20 08 ba nk ro bb ery an d t h e s en te nc es im po se d fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n of hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Bec au se we va cat e hi s se nt en ce in th e 20 08 ba nk ro bb ery cas e

fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d ab ov e, we do no t co ns id er whe th er th is se nt en ce was

reas on ab le

. As to th e se nt en ces im po se d fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e,

we co nc lu de , up on rev ie w of t he reco rd , th at th e se nt en ces were re as on ab le

.

V. Con cl us io n

Fo r th e re a s o n s s t a t ed he rei n, we va cat e th e se nt en ce im po se d fo r th e 20 08

ba nk ro bb ery an d rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g. (Dis t. Ct

. No. 1: 08 -CR- 07 2( 01 )-WBH;

A p p e a l No. 08 -1 54 33 .) W e affi rm th e se nt en ces im po se d fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n o f

su pe rv is ed rel eas e in th e o th er co ns ol id at ed cas es

.

IN CASE NUMBER 08 -1 54 33
, TH E J UDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS

AFFIR MED, BUT THE SENTENCE IS VAC A TED AND THE CASE IS

REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING. THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCES IN

ALL OT HER CONSOLIDATED CASES ARE AFFIRMED.

8