2010 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 3-8-2010 

# U SA v . C hri s t ophe r Re nd a 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 . 09-2406

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_2010

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 2010 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 . C hri s t op he r Re nd a" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1771. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1771H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s t r i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 09- 2406

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH RI S T OP HE R R E NDA, 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 08- cr - 382) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

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

J anuary29, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI AM OND, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 8, 2010)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

D IA M O N D , D is tr i ct

Judge . C hri st op her R end a chall eng es tw o special con dit i on s of sup ervi sed rel ease i m pos ed fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of fi r earm s bya convi ct ed fe l on. 18 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we a f

f i r m. I. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). II. W e or di nar i l yr evi ew the i m pos i t i on of s peci al condi t i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e for ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . C ran d o n , 1 7 3 F . 3 d 1 2 2 , 1 2 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W h e n n o o b

je c tio n is m a d e b e f

o re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , h o w e v e r, “ re v ie w is f o r p la in e rr o r.” U n ite d S ta te s v . W a rr e n , 1 8 6 F .3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). III . B e c a u se w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e P a rties , w e w ill su m m a riz e o n lyth o se f a c ts pert i nen tt o o ur anal y si s. R enda w as arr es t ed fol l ow i ng an i nves t i gat i on conduct ed bythe B ur eau of A l cohol , T obacc o, and Fi r earm s ( “A T F”) . ( PSR ¶ 3, 7. ) A T F agent s i nt ervi ew ed K en Fi nk, R enda’ s form erempl oy er , w ho s t at ed thatR enda “ had made thr eat eni ng r emar ks a b o u t v a ri o u s lo c a l o f

f ic ia ls a n d ju d g e s w h o h a d h a n d le d p ri o r c a s e s in v o lv in g R e n d a .” (P S R ¶ 7 . ) F ink told A T F ag en ts th at “o n o n e o cc asio n , w h il e [ F ink ] an d R en d a w ere3

d ri v ing tog ethe r, R en d a p o inted o u t a reside n ce w h ich R en d a sa id b elon g ed to a Y o rk C ountyj udge and i ndi cat ed thathe w ant ed t o puta bomb underthe j udge’ s vehi cl e. ” (Id .) A u th o rities su b se q u e n tlyid e n tifie d th e Ju d g e a s S h e ry l D o rn e yo f th e Y o rk C o u n ty C om m on Pl eas C our t . ( A pp. at30, 36. ) T he age nt s exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr antfor R enda’ s hom e w her e theyfound s m okel es s pow der , fus es , and hundr eds of r ounds of l i ve amm uni t i on. ( PSR ¶ 9. ) A gent s al s o found books “r el at [ed] t o bom b- m aki ng, i m pr ovi s ed d ev ices, fir ea rm s, an d firearm s sil en ce rs. ” (P S R ¶ 8 . ) O n D ec em b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , R en d a p led g u il tyto o n e c o u n t of p o sses sion o f a firearm bya convi ct ed fe l on. 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . A ts ent enci ng, R enda obj ect ed t o the thr eat d e sc rip tio n in th e P re se n ten c e R e p o rt, an d “ c a teg o ric a llyd e n ie[ d ] m a k in g a n yth re a t to harm any one. ” ( A pp. at31. ) T he pr os ecut oracknow l edged thatbeca us e the G overnm ent coul d notcorr obor at e Fi nk’ s acc ountof R enda’ s thr eat s , i tw oul d nots eek a nys ent enci ng en h an ce m en ts ba sed o n tho se th rea ts. (Id. at 33 . ) T h e p rose cu tor m aintaine d , h o w ev er, that“[t ] he [PSR ] i s acc ur at e and c om pl et e i n thati tnot es thos e al l egat i ons ar e w hat caus ed us outof a c oncern forthe s afe tyof j udi ci al offi cer s i n Y or k C ountyand other p u b li c o ff

ici als t o co m m en ce this i n v esti g ati o n . . . . ” (Id . ) T he D i s tr i ctC our toverrul ed R enda’ s obj ect i on t o the PSR , s t at i ng that thi s i s partof the s t ory , the w hol e pi ctur e her e, and I ’ m notgoi ng t o r emove them from t he pr es ent ence r eport . I w i l l , how ever , s t at e i n l i ghtof [the pr os ecut or ’ s ] s t at ementthattheys houl d notbe cr edi t ed bythe B ur eau of P riso n s f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

d e ter m in in g p u n ish m e n t o r a p p ro p ria te in stitu tio n o r a n yo f

th e o th e r m a tters th a t m ig h t b e in v o lv e d in re f e rrin g to them . (Id. at 34 ).4

T he D i s tr i ctC our tw as fami l i arw i th R enda, havi ng pr es i ded overhi s tr i al for w eapons and drug offe ns es “i n t he ea r l y80’ s . ” ( A pp. at42. ) I n i m pos i ng s ent ence , t he C our tdi s cus s ed w hya s ent ence of i ncar cer at i on w as nece s s arydes pi t e R enda’ s advanc ed age ( 74) and poorheal th: I f e e l b a d f o r M r. R e n d a a n d h is s e v e ra l p ro b lem s, b u t p e rh a p s h is h e a lth p ro b le m s c a n b e e f

f e c tiv e ly ad d re s s e d b yth e in s titu tio n to w h ic h h e w ill g o . I n l i ghtof hi s hi s t oryI do have a conce rn aboutr eci di vi s m and I al s o thi nk b e c a u se o f

th a t h isto rya p u n ish m e n t is a p p ro p ria te, a n d so I a m g o in g to in d ica te in m y , tha t in m yo p in io n th e g u id e lin e ra n g e h e re is a re a so n a b le one and appr opr i at e one. I n l i ghtof hi s age a nd hi s heal th, I w i l l s ent ence h im a t th e b o tto m o f

th a t ra n g e . M r. R e n d a a s w e h a v e sa id h a s b e e n in tr oubl e manyt i m es overthe y ear s , and w hi l e he s eems t o have pr ot ect ed the g u n s a s m u c h a s p o ss ib le, ju st th e m e re f a c t th a t h e h a d th e m , w ith h is r ecor d, w as a dumb t hi ng t o do. ( I d. at42- 43. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence w i thi n the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange – f i ft een mont hs i m pr i s onm entand tw o y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e w i th s peci al condi t i ons , i ncl udi ng: T he def endants hal l be pl ace d on hom e det ent i on w i th el ectr oni c moni t or i ng d u ri n g th e p e ri o d o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , a s d ir e c te d b yth e p ro b a tio n o f f ic e r. D ur i ng thi s t i m e, the def endants hal l r emai n athi s pl ace of r es i dence exce pt fo r em p loym en t, ed u ca ti o n , reli g iou s ac ti v it ies, tr ea tm en t, n ec essa ry s hoppi ng, orot heract i vi t i es pr e- appr oved bythe pr obat i on offi cer . T he d e f e n d a n ts h a l l c o mp l ywi th th e ru l e s o f th e l o c a t i o n mo n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m, and s hal l m ai nt ai n a t el ephone w i thoutanys peci al fea tur es athi s pl ace of r es i dence . Paym entof the dai l ycos tof l ocat i on m oni t or i ng i s w ai ved; and T he def endants hal l [have ] no cont actoratt empt ed cont actw i th J udge S h e r yl D o r n e y. (I d . a t 6 .) A l though R enda di d notobj ectt o thes e s peci al condi t i ons , he as ks us t o s tr i ke th e m a s u n re a s o n a b le .5 I V. B eca us e R enda di d notobj ectbel ow , w e r evi ew hi s s ent ence forpl ai n err or . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pruden, 398 F. 3d 241, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T o m eetthi s s t andar d, “[t ] her e mustbe an e r r orthati s pl ai n and thataff ect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. E v a n s , 1 5 5 F .3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). W e w i l l vacate a sent ence o nly“i f t he p l ai n err or affect i ng subst anti al ri gh t s al so s er i ous l yaff

ect s the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” I d. at 2 5 1 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). Pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3583, a s ent enci ng j udge mayi m pos e s peci al condi t i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e, as l ong as the condi t i ons ar e “r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the s ent enci ng fa ctors se t fo rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a), the n ature an d circu m stan ce s o f th e o ff en se a n d the h ist o ry a n d c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e f e n d a n t, an d m u st in v o lv e n o g re a ter d e p riv a tio n o f lib e rty than i s r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o aff or d adequa t e det err ence , t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om futur e cr i m es , and t o r ehabi l i t at e the def endant . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M i zw a, 2009 U . S. A pp. L E X IS 2 0 6 8 7 , * 4 (3 d C ir . S e p t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ); 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ); 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (d ). A ccor di ngl y , “[c ] ondi t i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e mustbe s uppor t ed bys om e evi dence t hat the c o n d it ion im p o sed is t an g iblyrelated to the circu m stan ce s o f th e o ff en se, th e h ist o ry of the def

endant , the nee d forgener al det err ence , ors i m i l arconce rns . ” U ni t ed St at es v. V o elke r, 4 8 9 F . 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).6

T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notm ake s epar at e fi ndi ngs r egar di ng the s peci al condi t i ons i m po sed, un do ub t edlybecau se R end a did not objectt o them . T he record no nethel ess am p lyd em o n str ates the rea so n s fo r th e c o n d it ion s. S ee id. ( “W h ere a se n tenc ing co u rt fai l s t o adequa t el yexpl ai n i t s r eas ons fori m pos i ng a condi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e or the co nd i t i on ’s rel at i on shi p to the ap pli cable s entenci ng fact ors, w e m aynev ertheles s aff i r m the condi t i on i f w e ca n ‘ as cert ai n anyvi abl e bas i s forthe . . . r es tr i ct i on i n the re c o rd b e f

o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . . . o n o u r o w n .’” ) ( c itin g W a rr e n , 1 8 6 F .3 d a t 3 6 7 ). R enda’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orygoes back t o 1953, and i ncl udes thr ee c onvi ct i ons for w eapons - r el at ed off

ens es , i ncl udi ng pos s es s i on of pi pe bombs. ( PSR ¶ 24- 28. ) A tthe t i me o f th e p i p e b o mb i n c i d e n t , Re n d a a l s o p o s s e s s e d a 9 mm ma c h i n e g u n , a s i l e n c e r , t wo pi s t ol s , and tw o 22 cal i bers i l ence r s . ( PSR ¶ 27. ) W hen theys ear ched hi s hom e i n 2008, A T F agent s found a s m al l ar s enal , i ncl udi ng bom b- m aki ng m at er i al s . M r . Fi nk s ai d that R enda ha d thr eat ened “ var i ous l ocal offi ci al s and j udges w ho had handl ed pr i orcas es i n v o l v i n g R e n d a , ” a n d w a n t e d t o b o m b th e c a ro f a j u d g e d e t e r m i n e d t o b e S h e ryl D o rn e y. T h e r e c o r d f

u r th e rc o n f

i r m s th a ta s a Y o r k C o u n ty A s s i s t a n tD i s tr i c tA t t o rn e y, M s . D orneyhad pr os ecut ed R enda, w ho s ubs equent l yappea r ed bef or e D orneyaft ers he b e c a m e a Ju d g e . (A p p . at 3 5 .) A t se n ten c in g , Ju d g e D o rn e ysta ted th a t o v e r th e th irty y e a rs s h e h a d d e a lt w ith R e n d a , s h e h a d le a rn e d th a t h e “ d o e s n o t o b e yc o u rt o rd e rs . . . [h] e does notobeythe l aw . ” ( I d. ) J udge D orneyas ked the C our tt o i m pos e s upervi s ed r el eas e condi t i ons thati ncl uded el ectr oni c moni t or i ng and pr ohi bi t i ng R enda f r om7

c o m in g w ith in a m ile o f h e r h o m e . (I d . a t 3 6 .) T h e G o v e rn m e n t r e ite ra te d th a t r e q u e s t. (Id. at 36 -37 . ) T he C our tdi d notbarR enda f r om the ar ea a r ound J udge D orney ’ s hom e. R ather the C our tnarr ow ed the r es tr i ct i on, pr ohi bi t i ng R enda f r om havi ng anycont actw i th J udge D o rn e y . A lth o u g h th e e lec tro n ic m o n ito rin g a n d h o m e c o n f in e m e n t ar e o b v io u sly r es tr i ct i ve, R enda mayl eave hi s r es i dence for“empl oym ent , educa t i on, r el i gi ous act i vi t i es , tr eatm ent , nece s s arys hoppi ng, orotheract i vi t i es pr e- appr oved bythe pr obat i on o ff icer. ” (A p p . at 6.) In th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p lain err or . O n t he contr ary , the r ecor d ampl ydemonstr at es thatthe i m pos i t i on of s peci al condi t i ons i s “t angi bl yr el at ed t o t he ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e [a nd] the hi s t oryof the defe ndant . ” V oel ker , 489 F. 3d at144. M or eover , the condi t i ons “i m pos e no gr eat er depr i vat i on of l i bertythan i s r eas onabl ynece s s ary ” i n the ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed. 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (d)(2 ). V. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e w ill a f f irm th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt.