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 3-27-2009 

# U SA v . Karee m Mi llhou se 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 . 08-1326

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 author i 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 . K ar e e m Mi llhous e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1664. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1664NOT 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 . 08- 1326/ 1398

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KA REEM M I LLHO USE, A p p e llan t.

_______________ O n A p p ea l 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 . N o. 06- cr - 397) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ynthi a M . R ufe

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 26, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , A M B R O a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 27, 2009)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . K ar eem M i l l hous e appe al s hi s convi ct i on bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a o f

a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a b u s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2241( a) ; s exual abus e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2242( 1) ; as s aul t , i n vi ol at i on of 182

U . S. C . § 113( a) ( 3) ; es cape , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 751( a) ; and pos s es s i on of a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n in a f e d e ra l f a c ili ty , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 3 0 (b ). O n a p p e a l, M ill h o u se c o n ten d s th a t th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n . B e c a u se th e re w a s s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt th e D istric t C o u rt’s v e rd ict, w e w ill a f

f ir m its ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n . I . Backg r ound I n M ay2006, M i l l hous e w as char ged w i t h arm ed bank r obberyand arr es t ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed a f emal e att orneyfr om the C r i m i nal J us t i ce A ctPanel of the E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a t o defe nd hi m . M i l l hous e and hi s at t orneydi s cus s ed co o p era ti n g w ith the g o v ern m en t and sch ed u led m ee ti n g s w ith fe d era l auth o ri ti es. B ef o re one of thes e meet i ngs , M i l l hous e w as t aken t o a r oom atthe W i l l i am J. G r een Fede r al B ui l di ng i n Phi l adel phi a and l eftal one w i t h hi s at t orney . H e then r emoved a r azorbl ade t hathe had hi dden i n hi s m out h, pl ace d i tathi s at t orney ’ s thr oat , and t ol d herthathe w a n te d to h a v e s e x w ith h e r. M ill h o u se ’s a tto rn e ysc re a m e d , an d M ill h o u se f lu n g h e r a c ro ss th e ro o m a n d in to t he w al l . A s l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s rus hed i nt o t he r oom , M i l l hous e bega n t hr ow i ng h im se lf a g a in st o n e o f

th e w in d o w s. W h e n h e w a s u n a b le to b re a k th e w in d o w w ith h is s houl der , he pi cked up a chai rand s l amm ed i tagai ns tthe w i ndow r epea t edl yunt i l he w as s ubdued. W hi l e l aw enfor cementagent s w er e t aki ng M i l l hous e i nt o cus t ody , he s ai d t hat h e w a n te d to d ie .T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is c ri m in a l c a s e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on under 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T he governm entar gues t hatM i l l hous e has ent i r el yw ai ved hi s s uffi ci ency - of- the- 2 e v id e n c e a rg u m e n t. (A n sw e rin g B r. at 1 3 -1 8 .) B e c a u se M ill h o u se ’s a rg u m e n t is p lain ly w i t houtm er i t , w e choos e t o di s pos e of i ton t he mer i t s , r atherthan cons i der i ng the q u e s tio n o f

w a iv e r. 3 I n A ugus t2006, a gr and j ur yr eturned an i ndi ctm entagai ns tM i l l hous e, char gi ng hi m w i t h aggr avat ed s exual as s aul t , s exual abus e, as s aul t , es cape , and pos s es s i on of a danger ous w eapon i n a fe der al fac i l i t y . M i l l hous e w ai ved the r i ghtt o a j urytr i al , and, aft er a tw o-dayben ch tr i al , the C ou rtfou nd M i l l ho use gu i l t yof all fi ve co un t s. M i l l ho use di d notar gue t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , ei t herdur i ng oraft erthe tr i al , thatther e w as in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to c o n v ic t h im . M i l l hous e has fi l ed a t i m el yappea l and now chal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence agai ns thi m . H e ar gues t hatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove thathe had t he i nt entnece s s aryt o comm i tt he cr i m es he w as convi ct ed of be caus e hi s actual i nt ent w a s to c o m m it s u ic id e b yin d u c in g la w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs to s h o o t h im . I I . D i s cus s i on 1 B eca us e M i l l hous e di d notpr es erve the i s s ue of s uffi ci encyof the evi dence by m aki ng a t i m el ym ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al atthe cl os e of the evi dence , w e r evi ew fo r plain e rror. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mor nan , 413 F. 3d 372, 381 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i ons 2 om i t t ed). In r eview i ng for pl ai n err or, w e exam i ne the evidence in the li gh tm ost f a v o ra b le f

o r th e g o v e rn m e n t an d m u st s u sta in th e D istric t C o u rt’s v e rd ict if a re a so n a b le4

fac tfi nder , bel i evi ng t he governm ent ’ s evi dence , coul d fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e d a ll th e e le m e n ts o f a ll th e o f

f e n s e s . S e e id . ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ). M i l l hous e cl ai m s t hatt he governm entdi d notpr es ents uffi ci entevi dence t o pr ove t hathe had the i nt entnece s s aryt o comm i tthe cr i m es of w hi ch he w as convi ct ed. T he governm entpr oduced e vi dence t hatM i l l hous e s nuck a r azorbl ade i nt o a fe der al bui l di ng, u se d it t o th re a ten to k ill h is a tto rn e yif sh e w o u ld n o t h a v e se x w ith h im , an d th e n tried to e sc a p e b yb re a k in g a w in d o w . T a k e n in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, th is evidence is m ore than suffici ent for a r easona ble factfi nd er t o co nclude t hat M i l l ho use h a d th e re q u is ite in te n t to c o m m it th e c ri m e s o f c o n v ic tio n . I I I . C onc l us i on B e c a u s e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t c o m m it p la in e rr o r, w e w ill a f f ir m its ju d g m e n t.