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 11-2-2009 

# U SA v . W i llie H ampt on 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 . 08-3326

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 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 . W i ll ie H ampt on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 323. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/323NOT 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 o. 08- 3326

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. WI L L I E ANDR E W HAM P T ON, 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 f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 00352- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr.

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober29, 2009 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: N ovember2, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . W ill ie A n d re w H a m p to n p led g u iltyto b e in g a f e lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) a n d 9 2 4 (e ), an d th e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to 1 8 0 m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t. O n ap p ea l, H am p ton ch all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s2

cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons and s ubs equentdeni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , the appl i cabi l i tyof an e nhance d s ent ence underthe A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct , and the c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i tyo f

1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. T he ci r cumst ance s gi vi ng r i s e t o H ampt on’ s convi ct i on occurr ed on J anuary16, 2006, w hen thr ee Cl ai r t on Pol i ce D epart m entoffi cer s , O ffi cerSean M cG r ai l , O ffi cer M i chae l M er l i no, and O ffi cerR i char d B oncze k, conduct ed the tr aff i c s t op of a r ent ed m i ni van bas ed on an a l l egedl yi noper abl e pas s engers i de br ake l i ght . N or m an C ol l i ns w as dri ving t he v ehicl e, and H am pton w as a passenger. D uri ng the st op , the o ffi cers , d isc o v e rin g th a t n e ith e r th e d riv e r n o r H a m p to n h a d a v a lid d riv e r’s lice n se , d e c id e d to im p o u n d th e m in iv a n . O f f ice r M c G ra il as k e d C o lli n s to ste p o u t o f th e v e h icle , w h ile O ffi cer s M er l i no and B oncze k expl i ci t l yi ns truct ed H ampt on t o r emai n i ns i de the m i ni van. H ampt on r efus ed t o do s o, and a s truggl e ens ued. D ur i ng the s cuff l e, one of the o f f ice rs f e lt a g u n a n d n o tifie d h is c o llea g u e s. It to o k a ll th re e o f f ice rs to f in a lly o v e r c o me Ha mp t o n . Af t e rs u b d u i n g a n d s e c u r i n g h i m, th e p o l i c e f o u n d two l o a d e d 9 mm handguns on H ampt on’ s per s on and di s cover ed thatH ampt on w as w ear i ng a bul l etpr oofI n l i ghtof O ffi cerM cG r ai l ’ s t es t i m onyatthe or i gi nal s uppr es s i on hear i ng, 1 H a m p to n f

iled a m o tio n to re o p e n th e re c o rd so th a t C o lli n s c o u ld b e c a lled to tes tifyto hi s know l edge of

the br ake l i ght ’ s condi t i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the r eques tand s chedul ed a s econd s uppr es s i on hear i ng. 3 v e st u n d e rn e a th h is c o a t. H a m p to n w a s s u b se q u e n tlyc h a rg e d a s b e in g a f e lo n in p o sses sion o f a firearm in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) an d 9 2 4 (e). H a m p to n f

iled a m o tio n to su p p re ss , arg u in g th a t th e f ire a rm s w e re o b tain e d in v io latio n o f

h is F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. A t th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g , O f f ice r M c G ra il t es t i fi ed thathe conduc t ed the tr aff i c s t op due t o an unl i tpas s engers i de br ake l i ghtand thathe comm uni cat ed the pr obl em t o C ol l i ns . ( A pp. at76- 77. ) H e al s o expl ai ned w hyhe di d notr el aythe pr obl em i n hi s r adi o tr ans m i s s i on: “I t ’ s a pr act i ce of m i ne [that ] I never br oadca s tthe r eas on form ytr aff i c s t ops . ” ( A pp. at91. ) G aryW . M cD onough, a coow nerof the r ent al s ervi ce thatr ent ed the mi ni van, t es t i fi ed thatthe mi ni van’ s br ake l i ght s appea r ed t o be w or ki ng both befor e and a ft erthe i nci dent , butconce ded thati tw as pos s i bl e fora l oos e w i r e t o caus e the l i ghtt o oper at e i nt erm i t t ent l y . ( A pp. at109- 11, 140. ) A ta s econd s uppr es s i on hear i ng, C ol l i ns t es t i fi ed thatthe pol i ce di d not 1 demonstr at e t o hi m thatthe br ake l i ghtw as i noper abl e ( A pp. at177) , w hi l e O ffi cer M cG r ai l r ei t er at ed hi s t es t i m onythathe i nform ed C ol l i ns of the unl i tbr ake l i ght . ( A pp. at21 5-16.) T he D i stri ctC ou rt , fi nd i ng O ffi cer M cG rai l ’s t est i m on ycredi ble and C oll i ns’ te s tim o n yn o t c re d ib le , d e n ie d th e m o tio n to s u p p re s s . (A p p . a t 7 , 9 .)4

H a m p to n e v e n tu a llyp led g u iltyto b e in g a f e lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) . T he Pl ea A gr eementcont ai ned an exp res s w ai ver of H am pton’s app el l at e ri gh t s, w i th several dis cret e exce pti on s:

“ W ill ie A n d re w H a m p to n w a iv e s th e rig h t to tak e a d ire c t ap p e a l f ro m h is convi ct i on ors ent ence under28 U . S. C . §1291 or18 U . S. C . § 3742, s ubj ect t o the foll ow i ng excep t i on s: ( a) I f the U ni t ed St at es appea l s fr om the s ent ence , W i l l i e A ndr ew H ampt on m ayt ake a di r ectappea l fr om the s ent ence . (b ) If (1 ) th e se n ten c e e x c e e d s th e a p p lica b le s tatu to rylim its se t f o rth i n t he U ni t ed St at es C ode, or( 2) the s ent ence unr eas onabl yexce eds the gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned bythe C ourtunderthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , W i l l i e A ndr ew H ampt on m ayt ake a di r ectappea l fr om the s ent ence . ( c) A s a condi t i on of hi s gui l typl ea, W i l l i e A ndr ew H ampt on m ay t a k e a d i r e c ta p p e a l f

r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n l i mi t e d t o th e f o l l o wi n g two i s s ues : ( 1) w hether18 U . S. C . § 922( g) i s uncons t i tut i onal underthe C om m er ce Cl aus e, ei theron i t s fac e oras appl i ed i n thi s cas e; and (2 ) w h e th e r th e tra f

f ic s to p v io late d th e d e f

e n d a n t’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . . . . T he for egoi ng r es ervat i ons of the r i ghtt o appea l on the bas i s of s peci fi ed is s u e s d o n o t in c lu d e th e ri g h t to ra is e is s u e s o th e r t h a n th o s e s p e c if ie d .” ( A pp. at280- 81, ¶9. ) A tthe pl ea he ar i ng, H ampt on s t at ed thathe under s t ood thatthe j udge had y ett o cal cul at e hi s s ent ence , w hi ch coul d be more orl es s s ever e than the s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange. ( A pp. at260- 61. ) T her eaf t er , the G overnm entr epea t ed the P le a A g re e m e n t, in c lu d in g th e a p p e lla te w a iv e r, i n o p e n c o u rt . (A p p . a t 2 6 1 -6 3 .) T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eportcl as s i fi ed H ampt on as an arm ed ca r eer c ri m in a l u n d e r § 9 2 4 (e ) d u e to h is th re e p ri o r s e ri o u s d ru g o f f e n s e c o n v ic tio n s .5

H a m p to n ’s f

in a l o f f e n se lev e l o f

3 1 a n d c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f IV , co m b in e d w ith the 15- y ears t atut orym i ni m um pur s uantt o § 924( e) , y i el ded a s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange of 180 t o 188 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d H ampt on t o 180 m o n th s o f

im p riso n m e n t, an d H a m p to n f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on byvi r tue of 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s j u d g me n to f s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . “W e re v iew a D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o t he under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the l aw t o thos e fa ct s . ” U n itedS ta tes v . L o c ke tt , 4 0 6 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er, w e w il l no t setasid e a D istri ct C o u rt ’s c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n w h e n s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . U n itedS ta tes v . Ko le , 164 F. 3d 1 6 4 , 1 7 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). A lth o u g h w e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e c o n stitu tio n a lity o f th e a p p lic a tio n o f

th e A rm e d C a re e r C ri m in a l A c t, U ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 473 F. 3d 7 1 , 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), w e m u st de term ine a s a th resh o ld m att er w h ethe r H am p ton ’s appel l at e w ai verpr event s us fr om exer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the mer i t s of H a m p to n ’s a p p e a l, U

nited S tates v. C orso , 5 4 9 F . 3 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . F i n a l l y , we e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r t h e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). U ni t ed Stat es v. Singl etary , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 1 9 6 , 1 9 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).6 III . O n appea l , H ampt on r ai s es thr ee c hal l enges t o hi s j udgm entof s ent ence . Fi r s t , he a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d c lea r e rro r b yd e n y in g H a m p to n ’s m o tio n to su p p re ss . S e c o n d , h e c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt v io late d h is E q u a l P ro tec tio n rig h ts underthe Fi fth A m endmentbycount i ng hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons as thr ee unde rthe A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct . L as t l y , he ar gues thatC ongr es s exce eded i t s pow erunderthe C o m m e rc e C lau se in e n a c tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). W e w ill a d d re ss e a c h c o n ten tio n in turn. A. H ampt on ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed cl earerr orw hen i tdet erm i ned th a t th e m in iv a n h a d a n u n litb ra k e lig h t an d th u s re jec ted H a m p to n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h is F o u rth A m en d m en t r igh ts w ere v iolated. B ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied H am p ton ’s m o tio n to su p p re ss “ [ b ]a se d o n [ its] f in d in g s re g a rd in g th e c re d ib ili tyo f th e w itn e ss e s to th is in c id e n t” ( A p p . at 9 ), H a m p to n e ss e n tiallyc h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on s r egardi ng O ffi cer M cG rai l and C oll i ns. It is w e ll se ttl e d th a t w h e re th e re c o rd su p p o rts a d istric t co u rt’s c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n , it is n o t f o r u s to s e t a s id e . Ko le , 16 4 F . 3d at17 7. T his i s becau se “[c ] r edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons ar e the uni que pr ovi nce of a fa ctfi nder . ” I

d. H er e, the D istric t C o u rt c h o se to b e liev e O f f ice r M c G ra il’s te stim o n yth a t th e m in iv a n h a d a n u n lit pas s engers i de br ake l i ghtand t o di s bel i eve Col l i ns ’ t es t i m onythatthe pol i ce di d not7

demonstr at e t o hi m thatthe br ake l i ghtw as i noper abl e. B eca us e the r ecor d – O ffi cer M cG r ai l ’ s r epea t ed t es t i m onyand M cD onough’ s t es t i m onythati tw as pos s i bl e forthe br ake l i ghtt o oper at e i nt erm i t t ent l y– s uppor t s thi s det erm i nat i on, w e w i l l nots eti tas i de her e. T her efor e, s i nce a n unl i tbr ake l i ghti s a vi ol at i on of 75 Pa. C ons . St at . § 4303( b) and “a nyt echni cal vi ol at i on of a tr aff i c code l egi t i m at i zes a s t op, ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mos l ey , 454 F. 3d 249, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng W hr en v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 517 U . S. 806 (1 9 9 6 )), th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r b yre jec tin g H a m p to n ’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t cla im and den y i ng his m oti on t o sup press . B. H ampt on al s o cont ends thatthe appl i cat i on of a s ent ence enhanc ementundert he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ctvi ol at es the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the Fi fth A m endment b ytr e a tin g d e f

e n d a n ts w h o a re a rm e d c a re e r c ri m in a ls , s ee 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 ( e ) , U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 .4 , d if

f e re n tly f ro m d e f e n d a n ts w h o a re u n a rm e d c a re e r o f f e n d e rs , s ee 2 8 U. S . C. § 9 9 4 (h), U . S . S . G . § § 4 A 1 . 1 , 4 A 1 . 2 (a)(2), 4B 1 . 1 , 4 B 1 . 2 . (A p p . at 38 . ) M o re sp e c if ica lly , H a m p to n c h a llen g e s th e f a c t th a t th e A rm e d C a re e r C rim in a l A c t co u n ts h is pr i orconvi ct i ons as thr ee s epar at e convi ct i ons , w hen the s ame convi ct i ons ar e count ed o n lyo n c e u n d e r th e c a re e r o f f e n d e r g u id e lin e s. (A p p . at 3 8 -4 0 .) T h e G o v e rn m e n t, c o n t e n d i n g th a tHa mp t o n wa i v e d th i s a r g u me n ti n h i s P l e a Ag r e e me n t , r e q u e s t s th a twe decl i ne t o r eac h t hi s i s s ue.8

W e w i l l decl i ne t o r evi ew the mer i t s of H ampt on’ s appea l i f the i s s ue he pur s ues fal l s w i thi n the s cope of hi s appel l at e w ai verand i f he know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yagr eed to th e w a iv e r, u n le s s e n f o rc in g th e w a iv e r w o u ld w o rk a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . C orso , 549 F. 3d at927. W e have s t at ed that“w ai ver s of appe al s s houl d be s tr i ct l ycons trued, ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), an d that the “ d ef en d an t bea rs the bur den of pr es ent i ng an ar gum entthatw oul d r enderhi s w ai verunknow i ng or i nvol unt ary , ” U

nited S tates v. M

ab ry , 5 3 6 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). H er e, w e fi nd notonl ythatH ampt on w ai ved hi s E qual Pr ot ect i on cl ai m i n hi s Pl ea A g re e m e n t, bu t als o th a t h is c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. F irst, itis c lea r f ro m th e p lain la n g u a g e o f

th e w a iv e r, s ee S e c tio n (I ), supra , tha t H a m p to n ’s E q u a l P ro tec tio n c laim is notone of the s peci fi ed exc ept i ons : H ampt on’ s 180- m onth s ent ence i s bel ow the s t atut orym axi m um and w i thi n t he gui del i ne r ange, and H ampt on’ s E qual Pr ot ect i on cl ai m i s di s t i nctfr om the cons t i tut i onal i tyof 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) underthe C om m er ce C l ause an d H am pton’s F ou rth A m end m ent r i gh t s. S e c o n d , H a m p to n h a s f a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t th e a p p e llate w ai verw as notknow i ng and vol unt ary . A tthe pl ea he ar i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi r ect ed H ampt on’ s att ent i on t o t he G overnm ent ’ s des cr i pt i on of the Pl ea A gr eement , and the G overnm entdes cr i bed the appe l l at e w ai verpr ovi s i on. ( A pp. at261- 62. ) T he C our tt hen as ked H ampt on w hetherhe s t i l l w i s hed t o ent era pl ea of gui l ty . ( A pp. at273. ) A ft erE v e n a s s u m in g , ar guendo , th a tth e w a i v e rw a s n o tk n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a ry, 2 H am pton’s E qu al P rot ect i on cl ai m st i l l fai l s on the m eri t s. H am pton con cedes t hat the rat i on al basi s st and ard app l i es. 3 9 cl ar i fy i ng a s epar at e i s s ue r egar di ng theft , H ampt on s i gned the Pl ea A gr eementi n open c o u rt . (A p p . a t 2 7 3 -7 6 .)

2 F in a lly , an e x a m in a tio n o f th e m e rits o f

H a m p to n ’s E q u a l P ro tec tio n c laim demonstr at es thatenfor cementof the appe l l at e w ai verw i l l notr es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. W e have s t at ed that“unl es s a s t atut e cr eat es a s us pectcl as s i fi cat i on ori m pi nges u p o n a f u n d am en tal interest, itw il l be u p h eld if th e p u rpo se o f th e c lassifi ca ti o n b ea rs s om e r at i onal r el at i ons hi p t o a l egi t i m at e s t at e purpos e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

aw ki ns , 811 F. 2d 210, 216 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . I n H aw ki ns , w e dec l i ned t o ques t i on C ongr es s ’ fi ndi ng t hat m o s t r o b b e ri e s a n d b u rg la ri e s a re c o m m itte d b ya s m a ll n u m b e r o f c a re e r c ri m in a ls . I

d. at 216- 17. A ccor di ngl y , w e hel d t hatther e i s a r at i onal bas i s fordi s t i ngui s hi ng betw een 3 thr ee- t i m e r obber s /bur gl ar s and thr ee- t i m e other - cat egoryfel ons , s uch as m ur der er s or k id n a p p e rs , u n d e r t h e A rm e d C a re e r C ri m in a l A c t. I d. If C o n g re ss w a s ra tio n a l in enh ancing t he sentences of robb ers /bu rgl ars and no tm urderer s and k i dn app ers , C on gress w as cl ear l yr at i onal i n t r eat i ng arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal s m or e s ever el ythan unarm ed ca r eer c rim in a ls. T h e re f

o re , b e c a u se H a m p to n ’s E q u a l P ro tec tio n c laim is w ith o u t m e rit, enfor cementof the appe l l at e w ai verw i l l notr es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce.10 C. L as t l y , w e turn t o H ampt on’ s ar gum entthatC ongr es s exce eded i t s pow er s under th e Co mm e r c e Cl a u s e i n e n a c t i n g 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . Ha mp t o n r e c o g n i z e s th a twe exami ned thi s pr eci s e i s s ue i n det ai l i n Singl etary and hel d di r ect l yt o the contr ary . 268 F. 3d at204- 05 ( hol di ng that“pr oof . . . thatthe gun had tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce, ats om e t i m e i n t he pas t , w as s uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe i nt er s t at e comm er ce e l ement ” of the s t atut e) . Si nce Singl etary r emai ns the l aw of thi s ci r cui t , pr ece dentpr event s us fr om e n te rt a in in g H a m p to n ’s a rg u m e n t. See U nited S tates v. C ow ard , 296 F. 3d 176, 183 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( r ej ect i ng the def endant ’ s chal l enge t o § 922( g) i n l i ghtof the bi ndi ng eff ect w e g ive to p rec ed en ti al op inion s o f th is co u rt ). I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.