2008 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 2-20-2008 

# U SA v . Lowe ry 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 . 06-4276

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_2008

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 2008 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 . L owe ry " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1575. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1575NOT 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. 06- 4276

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. WI L L I AM L OWER Y, 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 ( N o. 04- cr - 00814) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. Petr es e B . T ucker Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary15, 2008 B efore: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S , and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

____________ Fi l ed: February20, 2008

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT C H A G A R E S , C irc u it J udge. D efe ndantW i l l i am L ow eryappea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence forpos s es s i on of a fi r earm bya fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) , cl ai m i ng that( 1) ther e w as i n s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tth e j u ry ’ s f i n d i n g th a th e k n o wi n g l yp o s s e s s e d a f i r e a r m;2

( 2) the D i s tr i ctC our tconfus ed and mi s l ed the j urybygi vi ng a cha r ge on j oi ntpos s es s i on; a n d (3 ) th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in in c lu d in g a p rio r f e lo n yc o n v ictio n in c a lcu latin g h is bas e off ens e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory . W e di s agr ee a nd w i l l aff i r m the ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . I. A s w e w ri te o n ly f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e d o n o t s e t o u t th e f a c ts in g re a t d e ta il. L ow eryagr eed a s a condi t i on of hi s s t at e par ol e thathe w oul d notpos s es s any fi r earm s , he w oul d obt ai n perm i s s i on befor e cha ngi ng r es i dence s , and he w oul d al l ow the Penns y l vani a B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e t o s ear ch hi s per s on, pr operty , and re sid e n c e w ith o u t a w a rra n t, an d se ize a n yo b jec t th a t v io late d a c o n d iti o n o f h is p a ro le . W h e n h e w a s f

irst re lea se d o n p a ro le, L o w e ryliv e d w ith h is f a m ily , b u t sh o rtly th e re a f ter , h e m o v e d in w ith h is g irlfr ien d , F io n a H o p k in s. H e d id n o t tell h is p a ro le offi cer , H arr yG aab, aboutthe move butG aab be came s us pi ci ous aft ervi s i t i ng the hous e of Low ery ’ s fami l yand fi ndi ng none of Low ery ’ s pos s es s i ons ther e. G aab c o n f ro n ted L o w e ry , an d L o w e ryc o n c e d e d th a t h e h a d m o v e d . G a a b th e n w e n t to H opki ns ’ addr es s , s poke w i th her , and s he conf i r m ed thatL ow eryw as , i n fac t , l i vi ng th e re . O n M ay28 , 20 04 , L ow eryreport ed to G aab, and si gn ed in, l i st i ng H op kins’ ad d ress a s h is ad d ress. F o ll o w ing a re q u est fro m h is sup erv isor, G aa b too k L o w ery ’s w al l etand key s and conduc t ed a s ear ch of the r es i dence , w hi l e Low eryw as3

t empora r i l ydet ai ned atthe par ol e off i ce. T he doort o one of the bedr oom s w as bol t ed t o the fl oorw i th a padl ock mar ked U - H aul , w her e Low eryhad w or ked one y ear e a rlier . G a a b o p e n e d th e lo c k w ith o n e o f L o w e ry ’s k e y s, a n d h e a n d a n o th e r a g e n t, R i ck O l i ver os , pr ocee ded t o s ear ch the r oom , w hi ch appe ar ed t o be w her e Low eryand H o p k in s s lep t. U n d e r th e rig h t sid e o f th e m a ttres s, a t th e h e a d o f th e b e d , the p a ro le offi cer s found an a ut om at i c pi s t ol tucked i ns i de a s m al l conce al m enthol s t erw i th a full yl oad ed m agazine con t ai ning si x li ve roun ds of a m m un i t i on . T he g un w as l ess than a foo tfrom the ed ge o f t he m at tres s. T he b ed w as posi t i on ed ag ai nsttw o w al l s, so that o n lythe righ t si d e, w h ere the g u n w as f o u n d , an d the f

o o t of the b ed w ere u n o b s tru c te d . T he bedr oom al s o cont ai ned a ni ghts t and, a cl os et , and tw o dr es s er s . T he ni ghts t and w as di r ect l yt o t he r i ghtof the bed, w i thi n arm s ’ r eac h of the pi s t ol . T he a g e n ts f o u n d p h o to id e n tific a tio n o f L o w e ryo n to p o f

th e n ig h t sta n d a n d a m a n ila envel ope w i th m ai l and document s addr es s ed t o L ow eryi ns i de the ni ghts t and. U nder the righ t si d e o f th e b ed , b elow w h ere the o ff icers f o u n d the g u n , there w ere six p airs of m en’ s s i ze 13 s hoes . W i thi n a fe w fee tof the s hoes , al s o on the r i ghts i de of the r oom , s t ood a dr es s erw i th m en’ s t oi l etr i es and cl othi ng. A t el evi s i on and M ar ch 2004 pol i ce c i t at i on addr es s ed t o L ow eryw er e on t op of the dr es s er . A cl os eton the r i ght sid e o f th e ro o m c o n tain e d b o th m e n ’s a n d w o m e n ’s c lo th in g . T h e c lo th in g c lo se st to the footof the bed w as femal e appa r el ; ther e w as m en’ s cl othi ng i n the otherhal f of the cl os et– cl os es tt o t he r i ghts i de of the bed a nd ni ghts t and. T he dr es s ert o the l eft4

o f th e e n tr a n c e to th e b e d ro o m c o n ta in e d f e m a le h y g ie n e p ro d u c ts . A t tr ia l, th e p a rt ie s s tip u la te d , in tera lia , thatL ow eryhad pr evi ous l ybeen convi ct ed of a cr i m e puni s habl e bya t erm of i m pr i s onm entexce edi ng one y ear , and th e g u n re c o v e re d u n d e r t h e b e d h a d b e e n s o ld to h is s is te r, B e rn a d e tte L o w e ry. A j uryconvi ct ed W i l l i am L ow eryon A ugus t17, 2005. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. L ow erycl ai m s thathi s convi ct i on m us tbe r ever s ed bec aus e the evi dence a d d u c e d a t trial w a s in su f f icie n t to p ro v e th a t h e k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss e d a f ire a rm in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). W e d is a g re e . Itis w ell estab li sh ed that ap p ell an ts fac e a h ea v yb u rde n in ch all en g ing a jury convi ct i on bas ed on s uffi ci encyof evi dence . “W e appl ya part i cul ar l ydefe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew w hen dec i di ng w hethera j uryver di ctr es t s on l egal l ys uffi ci ent evi dence . I ti s notforus t o w ei gh the evi dence ort o det erm i ne the cr edi bi l i tyof the w i tnes s es . R ather , w e mustvi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent , and w i l l s us t ai n t he ver di cti f anyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” U ni t ed St at es v. D en t, 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted); U n ite d S ta te s v . C a rt w ri g h t, 3 5 9 F .3 d 2 8 1 , 2 8 5 -8 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e have expl ai ned thatcons truct i ve pos s es s i on r equi r es thata per s on5

“know i ngl yhas both t he pow erand the i nt ent i on ata gi ven t i m e t o exer ci s e domi ni on o r c o n tr o l o v e r a th in g .” U n ite d S ta te s v . G a rt h , 1 8 8 F .3 d 9 9 , 1 1 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M er e pr oxi m i tyorm er e pr es ence on the pr opertyw her e contr aband i s l ocat ed does n o t est ab li sh d o m inion o r co n tr o l. U n it ed S tat es v . Jen k ins, 90 F . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). L ow eryar gues thathe s har ed the bedr oom w i th Fi ona H opki ns , and the e v id e n c e “ a t b e s t e s ta b lis h e d m e re p re s e n c e a n d p ro x im ity.” A p p e lla n t B r. a t 2 9 -3 0 . Y et , the fa ctthatot her s al s o have a cce s s t o a fi r earm does notpr ecl ude a f i ndi ng of cons truct i ve pos s es s i on. G arth, 188 F. 3d at113. D et ect i ve D ani el W ade t es t i fi ed at tr i al thatFi ona H opki ns w as s urpr i s ed w hen s he l earned thata fi r earm had bee n found underherbed. B as ed on thatt es t i m ony , the fa ctthatL ow ery ’ s s i s t erpr ocur ed the gun, the U - H aul padl ock on the bedr oom door , and the evi dence s ugges t i ng that L o w e rysle p t o n th e sid e o f th e b e d w h e re th e g u n w a s h id d e n , a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld h av e inf erred that L o w eryh ad co n stru cti v e p o sses sion o f th e f ir ea rm . L o w ery ’s a rg u m e n t is, the re f

o re , w ith o u t m e rit. III . L ow eryal s o ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tconfus ed and mi s l ed the j uryby givi ng a j ointpo sses si on charge, w hich w as not s up po rt ed b ythe fa ct s becau se L o w e ry’s g ir lf

ri e n d w a s n o t c h a rg e d w ith c ri m in a l p o s s e s s io n o r a s a c o n s p ir a to r.6

A gai n, w e di s agr ee. W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s choi ce of l anguage i n a j uryi ns truct i on for abus e of di s cr et i on. A j uryi ns truct i on does notcons t i tut e r ever s i bl e err ori f the i ns truct i on “fa i r l yand ade quat el y ” pr es ent s the i s s ues i n the ca s e w i thoutconfus i ng or m isl ea d ing the ju ry . U n it ed S tat es v . E ll is, 1 5 6 F . 3 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 8 n . 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); U n it ed S tat es v . Z eh rba ch , 4 7 F . 3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 6 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). W e h av e p lena ry r evi ew overa cha l l enge t o j uryi ns truct i ons bas ed on s t atut orycons truct i on and over the i nt erpr et at i on and appl i cat i on of l egal pr ece pt s . U ni t ed St at es v. Schnei der , 14 F .3 d 8 7 6 , 8 7 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). B efor e j urys el ect i on, the G overnm entr eques t ed an i ns truct i on r egar di ng j oi nt pos s es s i on, t o w hi ch Low eryobj ect ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our toverrul ed the obj ect i on and in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t:

T o p o ss e ss m e a n s to h a v e so m e th in g w ith in a p e rso n ’s c o n tro l. T h is do es not ne c e s s a r i l y mea n tha t the de fe nd a nt mus t ho l d i t ph y s i c a l l y , tha ti s, hav e actual possess i on of it . Poss es s i on i ncl udes s ol e and j oi ntpos s es s i on . Poss es s i on al s o i ncl udes both actual and cons truct ive p o ssess i on. A per s on w h o h a s d ir e c t p h y sic a l co n tro l o f so m e th in g o n o r a ro u n d h is p e rso n is then i n actual pos s es s i on o f it . A per s on w ho i s noti n actual pos s es s i on but w ho has both the pow erand the i ntention to e xer ci s e contr ol over so m ethin g is i n co n stru c ti v e p o sses sion o f it . S o w h en ev er I u se th e term “p o s s es s i on” i n thes e i ns truct i ons , I m ean a ctual as w el l as cons truct i ve pos s es s i on. A pp. 210- 11. C ontr aryt o L ow ery ’ s cont ent i on, “the mer e s t at ementt o the j uryof the w o rd s ‘j o in t p o s s e s s io n ’ w ith o u t a n ye x p la n a tio n ” w a s n e ith e r c o n f u s in g n o r m is le a d in g .7

A ppel l antB r . at32. G i ven thatL ow erys har ed the bed a nd bedr oom w i th hi s gi r l fr i end, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t e rr in in c lu d in g th e c o n c e p t o f jo in t p o s s e s s io n in its c h a rg e . M or eover , vi ew ed i n i t s ent i r ety , the cha r ge corr ect l yfocus ed on ac tual and cons truct i ve pos s es s i on and des cr i bed the r el evantl egal s t andar d. U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns t one, 107 F. 3d 200, 204 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . W e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our templ oy ed the corr ect leg a l sta n d a rd in its c h a rg e a n d d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w ith th e p a rticu lar lan g u a g e it u s e d to d e s c ri b e th e s ta n d a rd . I V. Fi nal l y , L ow erychal l enges the r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence , cl ai m i ng thatthe D is tr ic t C o u rt im p e rm is s ib ly d o u b le c o u n te d o n e o f h is tw o p ri o r f

e lo n yc o n v ic tio n s . L o w e rya rg u e s th a t a c o n v ictio n th a t ca u se d h im to b e a f e lo n w h o c o u ld n o t leg a lly p o ss e ss a w e a p o n m u st n e c e ss a rilyb e c o n sid e re d a n e lem e n t o f th e o f f e n se o f ill e g a lly p o sses sing a w ea p o n , an d there fo re, un d er the S en tenc ing G u idelines , the D istri ct C o u rt s h o u ld n o t h a v e c o n s id e re d h is p ri o r f e lo n yc o n v ic tio n in c a lc u la tin g h is c ri m in a l h is to ry. L o w e ry ’s a rg u m e n ts a re , h o w e v e r, w ith o u t m e rit. W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i n terpretati o n o f th e a d v isory S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a n d re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. U n ite d S ta te s v . G ri e r, 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c ). U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2 defi nes a pr i ors ent ence forpurpos es of comput i ng cr i m i nal8

h isto rya n d p ro v id e s th a t “[ t]h e ter m ‘p rio r se n ten c e ’ m e a n s a n yse n ten c e p re v io u sly i m pos ed upon adj udi cat i on of gui l t. . . forconductnotpartof the i ns t antoffe ns e. ” U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2. T he appl i cat i on not e expl ai ns that“[c ] onductthati s partof the i ns t ant offe ns e means conductthati s r el evantconductt o the i ns t antoffe ns e underthe pr ovi s i ons of § 1B 1. 3 ( R el evantC onduct ) . ” U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2, cmt . n. 1; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. I r vi n, 369 F. 3d 284, 289- 92 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . Y et , contr aryt o L ow ery ’ s cont ent i ons , none o f h is p rio r c o n v ictio n s c o n stitu ted c o n d u c t th a t w a s p a rt o f th e in sta n t o f

f e n se . B o th convi ct i ons w er e forpr i ori nci dent s unr el at ed t o pos s es s i on of the w eapon i n ques t i on h e re . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d L o w e ry’s s e n te n c e . 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 D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in a ll re s p e c ts .