2007 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 11-15-2007 

# U SA v . S mith 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 . 05-4973

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_2007

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 2007 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 . S mith" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 215. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/215NO T PRECEDEN TI AL I N TH E 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 S. 05- 4973 and 06- 2388 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . PERRY SM I TH A ppel l anti n N o. 05- 4973

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . KE VI N C L E VE L AND A ppel l anti n N o. 06- 2388

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N os . 04- cr - 00472- 1 and 04- cr - 00472- 2)

D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. G ene E. K . Pr att er Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober26, 2007 BE F OR E : F I S HE R, S T AP L E T ON a n d CO WEN,

C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: N ovember15, 2007)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge:

Fol l ow i ng a tr i al on s ever al count s r el at i ng t o an arm ed r obberyof Phi l adel phi a’ s Shernoff Sal ad C om pany , PerrySm i th and K evi n C l evel and w er e ea ch c o n v icte d o f

(1 ) o n e c o u n t o f

c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it a ro b b e ryth a t in ter f e re d w ith i nt er s t at e comm er ce, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ; ( 2) one countof comm i t t i ng a r obberythati nt er fer ed w i th i nt er s t at e comm er ce, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ; and ( 3) one countof us i ng, orai di ng and abe t t i ng the us e of, a fi r earm dur i ng and a c r i m e of vi ol ence , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) . C l evel and w as al s o convi ct ed of one countof t aki ng a mot orvehi cl e byfor ce orvi ol ence , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2119; and of one countof pos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of vi ol ence , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) . Sm i th and C l evel and w er e s ent ence d t o 260 and 528 m onths of i ncar cer at i on, r es pect i vel y , as w el l as s ubs equentper i ods of s upervi s ed re lea se , fin e s a n d re stitu tio n . T h e yn o w a p p e a l. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca s e, w e s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our3

a n a lysis . O n A u g u st 13 , 2 0 0 3 , at a li tt le pa st 10 p . m . , K ev in C leve land stole T erry M uch i son’s caratgu n p oint , and l at er i n the even i ng , transferred M uch i son’s l i cense pl at es t o a G r eyO l ds m obi l e.

T he nextm orni ng, atappr oxi m at el y10. 30 a. m . , Sm i th and C l evel and ent er ed the off

i ces of the Shernoff Sal ad C om pany , br andi s hed guns , and demanded m oneyfr om J eff

r eyShernoff. I n r es pons e, he turned overthe company ’ s m ai n cas h box a n d th e n to o k th e p a irto a n e a rb yo f f ic e w h e re a n o th e r c a s h b o x w a s s to re d . H ei di Shernoff, M r . Shernoff’ s cous i n and s ecr et ary , had bee n i n the b athro o m co n n ec ted to the o ff ice w h ere the s ec o n d ca sh b o x w as k ep t w h en the ro b b ers arr i ved. She had nothear d anycomm ot i on, s o w hen s he l eftthe bathr oom , s he w as su rp rise d to se e th e ro b b e ryo c c u rrin g . S h e y e lled to a ler t h e r c o -w o rk e rs, a n d in r es pons e, C l evel and dr ew hi s pi s t ol , and s ai d, “Thi s i s fory ou. ” Then C l evel and s hother on hi s w ayoutof the off i ce. O nce the def

endant s fl ed i n the O l ds m obi l e di s gui s ed by M u c h is o n ’s p la te s , s o m e o n e a t S h e rn o f f ’s c a lle d th e p o lic e a n d re p o rt e d th e ro b b e ry. A f terp iec in g to g e th e r a d e sc rip tio n o f th e ro b b e rs, p o lice b ro a d c a ste d th is i nform at i on overthei rr adi o netw or k. O ffi cer s on patr ol s pot t ed the O l ds tr avel i ng tow ard s the L ak es, an are a p ark , an d relay ed the in fo rm ati o n . A t th e L ak es, oth er o ff icers pur s ued the s us pect s i nt o t he park, w her e theyappr ehende d Sm i th and C l evel and. A ft er bei ng es cort ed t o t he pol i ce s t at i on, the pai rw as pr oces s ed, booked, and off er ed the4

chanc e t o m ake a s t at ement . A l though C l evel and dec l i ned, Sm i th opt ed t o do s o, t el l i ng offi cer s thathe had be en atShernoff’ s thatday , though he di d notpart i ci pat e i n the ro b b e ry. T he pai rw as s ubs equent l ytr i ed t ogether , convi ct ed, and s ent ence d on t he char ges l i s t ed above . II.

Sm i th and C l evel and appe al thei rconvi ct i ons and s ent ence s on a my r i ad of gr ounds , and thi s C our thas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overthes e t i m el yappea l s pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 (j u d g m en ts of co n v ict ion ), an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (sen tenc ing ). S av e f o r a s i ngl e cl ai m byC l evel and, w e fi nd no m er i ti n anyof them. W e fi r s taddr es s the chall eng es t o thei r convict i on s. A.

S m i th argue s that he w as und ulyprej ud i ced b ythe joi nt tri al becau se M u c h iso n , the c a r-ja c k in g v ictim , tes tifie d th a t C lev e lan d b ra n d ish e d a g u n , w h ich c o u ld have l ed the j uryt o “i nfer [] thatSm i th had a f i r earm s i nce he w as i n the companyof a m a n w h o s e v e ra l d a y s p ri o r . . . s im ila rl yro b b e d ” s o m e o n e e ls e .

W e dis agree. F i rs t , the juryw as i nst ruct ed n ot t o h old this evidence ag ai nst S m ith , a n in s tru c tio n th a t th e ya re p re s u m e d to h a v e f o llo w e d . U

ni t ed Stat es v . H

a k im , 3 4 4 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). S ec o n d , as th is C o u rth as re p ea tedlysaid , “n eith er a di s par i tyi n evi dence northe i ntr oduct i on of evi dence m or e damagi ng t o one def endant5

than anotherent i t l es the s eemi ngl yl es s cul pabl e def endantt o s ever ance . ” U ni t ed Stat es v . Sebet i ch , 7 7 6 F . 2 d 4 1 2 , 4 2 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v . D i cke ns , 695 F. 2d 7 6 5 , 7 7 8 -7 9 (3 d C ir.1 9 8 3 )). F in a lly , third , the e v id e n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n a d m iss ib le agai ns tSm i th i n a s epar at e tr i al as evi dence of an ove r tacti n fur ther ance of the c o n s p ir a c y . See U

ni t ed Stat es v . H

art , 2 7 3 F .3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). O n t he otherhand, C l evel and cont ends thatthe j oi nttr i al caus ed a B r ut on v io la tio n , b e c a u s e S m ith ’s o u t o f c o u rt s ta te m e n t w a s a d m itte d in to h is tr ia l. See Bruton v . U ni t ed Stat es , 3 9 1 U . S . 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 (19 6 8 ) (pro h ibit ing the a d m issi o n o f a co -de fe n d an t’ s c o n f e s s io n a t th e o th e r’ s tr ia l, if th e c o n f e s s o r i s n o t s u b

je c t to c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n ). A gai n, w e di s agr ee, beca us e Sm i th’ s s t at ementw as pr oper l yr edac t ed and w as ac co rdin g lyad m issi b le un d er B r ut on . See, e. g. , G r ay v . M ar yland , 523 U . S. 185, 196- 97 ( 1998) . Fur ther , the s ubs equentadmi s s i on of Sm i th’ s unr edac t ed s t at ementaft erhe t es t i fi ed di d noti m pl i cat e B r ut on b e c a u se S m ith h a d tak e n th e sta n d a n d w a s s u b jec t to c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o n its c o n te n ts .

T aki ng a di ffe r entt act , C l evel and cl ai m s thatSm i th’ s deci s i on t o t ake the sta n d d u rin g th e ir jo in t trial v io late d h is rig h t to re m a in sile n t b e c a u se th e ju ryw a s le f t to w onderw hyhe di d notfol l ow s ui t . H ow ever , i n r eac hi ng hi s concl us i on, C l evel and o v erloo k s the fa ct th at S m ith co u ld h av e testi fied ag ains t him w h ethe r or n o t th e tw o w ere tr ie d to g e th e r, s in c e S m ith ’s te s tim o n yw a s re le v a n t to C le v e la n d ’s c a s e . Zafi ro v . U ni t ed Stat es , 506 U . S. 534, 540 ( 1993) ( “A defe ndantnor m al l yw oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o excl udeS m ith a n d C lev e lan d m a k e a n u m b e r o f a d d iti o n a l m e ritles s c laim s re late d to th e ir 1 c o n v i c t i o n s . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, C l e v e l a n d o b

j e c t s t o c e r t a i n o f

f h a n d r e m a r k s h e s a ys i m pl i cat ed hi s r i ghtt o r emai n s i l ent , as w el l as cert ai n j uryi ns truct i ons he bel i eved l eft th e ju ro rs c o n f

u se d . F in a lly , h e o b

jec ts to M u c h iso n ’s in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n , cla im in g it w a s ta in ted . In tu rn , S m ith c laim s th a t th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is convi ct i ons on t he w eapons and cons pi r acycount s , and thathi s pr i ors t at ementt o pol i ce s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed s i nce i tw as m ade unde rdur es s . Fur ther , both ar gue that theyw er e arr es t ed w i thoutpr obabl e ca us e, thattheyw er e deni ed a s peedytr i al , thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tcons truct i vel yamended the i ndi ctm enti n i t s i ns truct i ons t o the j ury , that th e e y e w itn e ss id e n tific a tio n s w e re tain ted , an d th a t ce rta in e v id e n c e w a s a d m itt e d in v io latio n o f

th e b e st e v id e n c e ru le. W e h a v e re v iew e d a ll o f th e se c laim s a n d f

in d th e m to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. 6 the t es t i m onyof a f

or m ercodef

endanti f the di s tr i ctcourtdi d s everthei rtr i al s , and w e s ee no r eas on w hyr el evantand compet entt es t i m onyw oul d be pr ej udi ci al m er el ybeca us e the w i tnes s i s al s o a code fenda nt . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , the fa ctthatSm i th t es t i fi ed atthei rj oi nt trial is n o b a sis f

o r re v e rsa l. F in a lly , S m ith a n d C lev e lan d b o th a rg u e th a t, be c a u se th e ym a d e o f f w ith v e rylittle m o n e yf

ro m S h e rn o f

f ’s ( a d e b a tab le p o in t), th e e v e n t’s d e m in im is eff ecton in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e c o u ld n o t ju s tif ya c o n v ic tio n u n d e r t h e H o b b s A c t. T o th e c o n tr a ry, th e H o b b s A c t a p p lie s to p re c is e ly th e s e k in d o f ro b b e ri e s . S e e , e .g ., U

nited S tates v . U

r ban , 4 0 4 F .3 d 7 5 4 , 7 6 6 -6 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Maz z ei , 521 F. 2d 639, 642 ( 3d C i r . 1975) . I n fac t , w e have hel d thata r obberynett i ng a p p ro x im a tely$ 5 0 .0 0 f ro m a V irg in Isla n d s b a r th a t so ld H e in e k e n a n d M ill e r b e e r, b o th o f w h ich w e re sh ip p e d in f ro m th e m a in lan d U n ited S tate s, h a d a su f f icie n t n e x u s w ith in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e to p e rm it th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e H o b b s A c t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. H ayw ood , 3 6 3 F . 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 17 B. W e now turn t o Sm i th and C l evel and’ s chal l enges t o the s ent enci ng p ro c e e d in g s , w h ic h a re a ls o , f o r t h e m o s t p a rt , m e ri tle s s . Sm i th ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n enhanc i ng the G ui del i nes s ent ence s i x l evel s aft erfi ndi ng thatM s . Shernoff s uffe r ed a pe r m anentor l i fe - thr e a t e ni ng bo di l yi nj ury , a s de fi ne d b ythe U . S. S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES M AN UA L§ 2 B 3 .1 (b )( 3 ). T o appl ythe G ui del i nes , the D i s tr i ctC our thad t o det erm i ne ( 1) w hethert he sh o o tin g re su lted in a “ S e rio u s b o d ilyin ju ry ” to M s. S h e rn o f

f , i. e . w h e th e r sh e w a s le f t in

“ e x tre m e p h y sic a l p a in ,” s u f f e re d “ th e p ro tra c ted im p a irm e n t o f a f u n c tio n o f

a b o d ily m e m b e r , o r g a n , o rm e n t a l f a c u l ty, ” o rr e q u i r e d “ m e d i c a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s u c h a s s u r g e ry, hos pi t al i zat i on, orphy s i cal r ehabi l i t at i on, ” Id . at § 1 B 1 . 1 , A p p li ca ti o n N o te (L ), o r, a ltern a tiv e ly , (2 ) w h e th e r M s. S h e rn o f f su f f e re d a “ P e rm a n e n t o r L if e -T h re a ten in g B o d ily I nj ury , ” i . e. w hethers he fa ced “ a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of dea th, ” ors uffe r ed the “l os s or su b sta n tial im p a irm e n t o f th e f u n c tio n o f

a b o d ilym e m b e r, o rg a n , o r m e n tal f a c u ltyth a t is l i kel yt o be perm anent ; oran obvi ous di s fi gur ementthati s l i kel yt o be perm anent . ” Id . at § 1 B 1 . 1 , A p p li ca ti o n N o te (J).

W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de term ination o n this m att er f o r clear e rror, an d co rresp o n d ing lyw il l no t r ev erse itu n less w e a re “ left w ith the d ef init e a n d firm c o n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d ” b a s e d o n th e re c o rd a s a w h o le . U ni t ed8

Stat es v . G r i er , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( quot i ng C oncr et e Pi pe & P r ods . of C al . , I nc. v . C o n str . L a b o re rs P e n sio n T ru st fo r S . C a l. , 5 0 8 U .S . 6 0 2 , 6 2 2 (1 9 9 3 )) . H er e, C l evel and’ s s hott or e a hol e i n M s . Shernoff’ s ut erus and t ook a s ubs t ant i al por t i on of hers m al l i nt es t i ne. O bvi ous l y , thi s s hoot i ng l eftM s . Shernoff gr avel yi nj ur ed, and ac cor di ngl y , w e ca nnotconcl ude bas ed on the r ecor d befor e us that the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o cl as s i fythe i nj uryas perm anentorl i fe- thr eat eni ng w as c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s .

W e sim ilarlyf

in d n o m e rit in S m ith a n d C lev e lan d ’s c laim s th a t th e ir s ent ence s w er e unr eas onabl e, and thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fac t fi ndi ng bya pr eponder ance s ta n d a rd w a s in e rr o r.

F i nall y , C l eveland co ntes t s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nd i ng that he had “atl east tw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons [for ] cr i m e[s ] of vi ol ence ” and i s corr es pondi ngl ya ca r eer o f f e n d e r. See U . S. S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES M AN UA L§ 4B 1. 1( a) . C l evel and conc edes that he has been con vict ed o f agg ravat ed assault , w hich w as a cr i m e of v i olence, and al so o f c r i mi n a l c o n s p i r a c y . Ho we v e r , h e p o i n t s o u tth a tc o n s p i r a c yi s n o tc o n s i d e r e d a c r i me of vi ol ence fors ent enci ng purpos es unl es s the cons pi r acyw as pr edi cat ed on s uch a c r i m e, and C l evel and ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thathi s cons pi r acyconvi ct i on p e rt a in e d to a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . E . g. , Id . at§ 4B 1. 2 A ppl i cat i on N o te 1 . W e agr ee. A ts ent enci ng, the governm entr epr es ent ed t o the C our tthatt he9

cons pi r acychar ge had onl yfourpos s i bl e obj ect s : thr ee w er e cr i m es of vi ol ence , though the fourth, pos s es s i on of an i ns trum entof a c r i m e, w as not . Fur ther , al l part i es agr eed that , underthe r el evantl aw , a cons pi r acyconvi ct i on carr i ed the s ame se nt ence as the m os ts er i ous under l y i ng offe ns e, and pos s es s i on of an i ns trum entof a c r i m e coul d y i el d – atw orst– five y ears . C on si deri ng these facts , the D i stri ctC ou rtreas on ed thatbecau se C l evel and r ece i ved a f

i ve t o t en y ears ent ence forhi s i nvol vementi n the cons pi r acy , he coul d nothave be en convi ct ed onl yof cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s an i ns trum entof a c r i m e, and m u s t h a v e b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a c o n s p ir in g to c o m m it a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n i t s r eas oni ng beca us e i tover l ooked the f a c t th a t C lev e lan d w a s a lso c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp irin g to v io late th e U n if o rm F ire a rm s A c t, w hi ch i ncl uded non- vi ol entcr i m es m er i t i ng the s ame fi ve t o t en y ears ent ence C l evel and re c e iv e d . See 18 Pa. C . S. A . § 6105. So, had hi s cons pi r acyconvi ct i on been pr edi cat ed on a U ni form Fi r earm s A ctchar ge, w hi ch i s pos s i bl e, hi s fi ve t o t en y ears ent ence m aynot h a v e b e e n in d ic a tiv e o f a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in c la s s if y in g C le v e la n d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r. C ons equent l y , w e w i l l vaca t e C l evel and’ s s ent ence , and r emand t he mat t erfor r es ent enci ng onl y . H ow ever , thi s does notpr ecl ude the D i s tr i ctC our tfr om r es ent enci ng C l evel and as a ca r eeroffe nderi f i ti s abl e, upon fur thercons i der at i on and/ ordevel opm ent of the r ecor d, t o det erm i ne thatC l evel and’ s cons pi r acyconvi ct i on pert ai ned t o a cr i m e of v io le n c e . See ge ner al l

y U ni t ed Stat es v . Si egel , 477 F. 3d 87 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( r evi ew i ng10

perm i s s i bl e s our ces of i nform at i on forus e i n appl y i ng U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 4 B 1 .2 ). III .

T h e j u d g m e n to f

th e D i s tr i c tC o u r ti n N o . 0 5 - 4 9 7 3 w i l l b e a f f i r m e d . We w i l l vaca t e the j udgementof the D i s tr i ctC our ti n N o. 06- 2388 and r emand t hatm att erfor re s e n te n c in g o n ly.