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 4-13-2010 

# U SA v . L a cey Gr a ves 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 . 08-4183

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 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 . L a c ey Gr a

ve s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1525. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1525NOT 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. 07- 4454 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LA CE Y G RA V ES, A ppel l ant ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00095- 1)

N o. 08- 4183 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LA CE Y G RA V ES, A ppel l ant ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 92- cr - 00298- 001) APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA D i s t r i ctJ udges : H onor abl e J an E. D uboi s ; H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es

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

M ar ch 11, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2010)W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 1 2 OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge L a c e yG ra v e s a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n b ya ju ry o f a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ry (N o . 07- 4454) and the addi t i onal t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e i m pos ed fol l ow i ng hi s t erm of i m pr i s onm enton t hatconvi ct i on ( N o. 08- 4183) . G r aves ’ s at t orneyi n eac h of the ca s es has fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). G r aves has fi l ed a pro se br i ef i n eac h cas e. I. T h e p a rties a re f

a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c ts, a n d so w e in c lu d e o n lyth o se n e c e ss a ryto d e c i d e t h i s a p p e a l . M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e th e a r g u me n t s r a i s e d o n a p p e a l e ma n a t e f r o m two d if f e re n t ca se s, w e a d d re ss th e a rg u m e n ts m a d e in e a c h o f th e c a se s a n d th e re late d f a c ts i n s epar at e s ect i ons of thi s opi ni on. A tthe out s et , w e not e thatat t orney s , w hen s eeki ng 1 t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A nd ers , m u st “ sa tisf yth e c o u rt th a t [ th e yh a v e ] th o ro u g h ly ex am ined the re co rd in sea rch o f a p p ea lable issu es, an d . . . ex p lai n w h ythe issu es a re fr i vol ous . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 24 1 F . 3d 29 6, 30 0 (3d C i r. 20 01 ). T heyhav e do ne so h e re . G raves has r ai sed nu m erous i ssues i n h i s pro se f ili n g s, a ll o f

w h ich w e w illA condi t i on of the s upervi s ed r el eas e i m pos ed i n 1993 w as that“[w ] hi l e on 2 s upervi s ed r el eas e, t he def endants hal l notcomm i tanotherfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal cr i m e

. . . . ” (S u p p . A p p . at 80 4 . ) 3 addr es s . T w o of thos e s ame i s s ues and tw o addi t i onal i s s ues have be en r ai s ed byone or b o th o f h is a tto rn e y s . W e w ill a d d re s s th o s e a d d itio n a l is s u e s a s w e ll. II. O n S e p te m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 9 2 , G ra v e s p le d g u ilty to th re e c o u n ts o f a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ry. O n M ar ch 17, 1993, J udge G i l es i m pos ed a s ent ence of 96 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand a fi ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. B efor e the s upervi s ed r el eas e per i od expi r ed, G rav es w as a rrested in co n n ec ti o n w ith an arm ed b an k rob b erythat o cc u rred o n Jan u ary 18, 2006. A ft ert w o m i s t r i al s , he w as convi ct ed i n N ovember2007. O n J ul y8, 2008, J udge D uB oi s s ent ence d hi m t o 180 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entand a f i ve- y eart erm of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . T h is c o n v ic tio n is th e s u b je c t o f th e f ir s t a p p e a l ( N o . 0 7 -4 4 5 4 ). A s a r es ul tof the N ovember2007 convi ct i on, J udge G i l es found thatG r aves vi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of the s upervi s ed r el eas e thathad bee n i m pos ed i n 1993, and 2 supervi sed rel ease w as r evo ked . Judg e G i l es r esent enced G raves t o tw o y ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bya one- y earper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e, w i t h bot h t he i m pr i s onm entand s upervi s ed r el eas e t o run concurr ent l yw i t h t he s ent ence i m pos ed by J udge D uB oi s i n J ul y2008. T he s upervi s ed r el eas e componentof the s ent ence i m pos ed b yJ u d g e G ile s f

o r t h e v io la tio n is th e s u b je c t o f G ra v e s ’s s e c o n d a p p e a l ( N o . 0 8 -4 1 8 3 ).4 A. W e br i efl ydi s pos e of G r aves ’ s ar gum ent s addr es s ed t o t he s ent ence i m pos ed for th e v io la tio n o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . H e a rg u e s , f ir s t, th a t “ in a c c o rd a n c e w ith 1 8 U .S .C . § 3583( e) t he C our tw as pr ecl uded fr om r es ent enci ng hi m t o [an] addi t i onal t erm of s upervi s ed [r el eas e] aft era t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , ” and thatdoi ng s o pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3583( h) w oul d vi ol at e the ex p o st fa c to c la u s e o f th e U .S . C o n s titu tio n . (G rav es’s 0 8 -41 8 3 B r. at 10 . ) I n 2000, t he Supr eme C our thel d t hat“§ 3583( e) ( 3) befor e i t s amendm entand the addi t i on of s ubs ect i on ( h) l eave s open the pos s i bi l i t yof s upervi s ed r el eas e af t er r ei ncar cer at i on. ” Johns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 529 U . S. 694, 713 ( 2000) . “[I ] n appl y i ng t he l aw as befor e the ena ctm entof s ubs ect i on ( h) , di s t r i ctcour t s have the author i t yt o or der t erm s of s upervi s ed r el eas e fol l ow i ng r ei m pr i s onm ent . ” I d. A cc o rdin g ly , G rav es’s a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. G r aves al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thathi s convi ct i on for arm ed bank r obberyvi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. W e di s agr ee. A vi ol at i on o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e n e e d o n l yb e p r o v e n b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 3 (e )(3 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 4 -55 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). N eith er a con vict i on no r an i nd i ct m ent i s r equi r ed t o s how thata def

endanthas vi ol at ed a c ondi t i on p ro h ib itin g th e c o m m is s io n o f a c ri m e . U

n ite d S ta te s v . P o e lln itz, 372 F. 3d 562, 566 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . R ather , w hatm at t er s i s thatthe def endant“comm i t t ed thatcr i m e as a mat t erT he r ecor ded numberw as chec ked aga i ns tthe Penns y l vani a D epart m entof M ot or 3 V ehi cl es r egi s t r y , and af t erchangi ng the pl at e numberfr om w hatthe empl oy ee ha d r ecor ded – G E F- 4597 – t o G FF-4597, the i nves t i gat orl earned thatthe vehi cl e w as regi st ered t o L aceyG raves. 5 of fa ct . ” Id . a t 5 6 7 . M u c h a s G ra v e s m a yq u e stio n th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict, a ju ryv e rd ict is a f a c tu a l f in d in g . B. G r aves nextr ai s es var i ous cont ent i ons r el at i ng t o hi s N ovember2007 convi ct i on f o ra r me d b a n k r o b b e r y . We b r i e f l ys u mm a r i z e th e e v i d e n c e t o p r o v i d e c o n t e x t . On Ja n u a ry1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , G ra v e s e n ter e d a U n iv e st B a n k lo c a ted in W a rm in ste r, P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d , w h ile c a rry in g a h a n d g u n , jum p e d o v e r th e telle r’s c o u n ter a n d to o k $ 6 ,4 2 1 .0 0 in ca sh . P ri o r t o the ro b b ery , a b an k em p loy ee o b serv ed a “ su sp ici o u s” w o m an w ith a sc arf o v er h er h ea d “loo k ing into the g lass [lo b b y ] do o rs, try ing to o b stru ct he r fa ce . ” (A p p . II, N o. 07 -4454 , D ay2 T r. at38 . ) A no t her em ploy ee at t em pted t o w ri t e do w n the l i cense pl at e numberof the w om an’ s I s uzu R odeo bef or e the w om an dr ove outof the parki ng l ot . Shor t l yaft ert he w om an’ s departur e, K i m B uckl ey , anotherempl oy ee, l ooked out 3 the w ind o w an d saw a m an ap p roa ch the b an k . T h e m an d isap p ea red fro m B u ck ley ’s vi ew , butt hen, as s he w at ched the t el evi s i on s ur vei l l ance m oni t or , s he s aw hi m ent ert he bank, j um p overt he count er , and t ake moneyoutof a t el l er ’ s dr aw er . B uckl eyand y et an o ther e m p loy ee , N an cyS eu ff ert, test ifi ed that the m an p o inted a g u n at T ara D etw eil er, a t el l er , w hi l e s he w as on t he gr ound. D etw ei l ert es t i fi ed thatw hi l e bendi ng overt o open t he coi n vaul t , s he coul d “s ee [ t he gun] atm yfac e, buti tw as n’ tpoi nt ed t ow ar ds m e. ”G raves’ s tri al at t orneyagreed thatthe snea kers bel on ged t o G raves. 4 6 (Id . at105. ) B uckl eys el ect ed G r aves ’ s pi ctur e fr om a phot o arr ayand i dent i fi ed hi m at trial. M i chae l Sm i t h, a for ens i c exa m i nerw i th t he FB I s peci al i zi ng i n s hoe pr i nt exami nat i ons , t es t i fi ed r egar di ng a s hoe pr i ntr ecove r ed fr om the t el l er ’ s count er . T he governm ent ’ s t heoryw as t hatt he s hoe pr i ntm at ched the men’ s s i ze e l even N ew B al ance s neake r s found i n t he home of G r aves ’ s gi r l fr i end, L es l i e N eal . Sm i t h t es t i fi ed thatt he 4 pri nt w as consi st ent w i t h the sneakers, bu ton cross exam i nati on con ceded that “i ti s al so verypos s i bl e thatt hes e s neake r s di d notl eave the pr i nt s thatw er e found on the count er t op. ” (I

d. at 92 -93 . ) O n e w itn ess, K im b erlyK rap f, fil led o u t a rob b ery des cr i pt i on s heeton t he dayof the r obbery , and ci r cl ed a pi ctur e of a booti n t he s ect i on id e n tify in g th e su sp e c t’s ite m s o f c lo th in g . A t trial, sh e e x p lain e d th a t “th a t’s w h a t I r eca l l ed att hatt i m e and thatw as pr obabl ythe . . . cl os es tpi ctur e t o w hathe w as w ear i ng. ” (Id . a t 6 0 .) D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he pr os ecut ors um m ar i zed Smi t h’ s t es t i m onyand s t at ed that “I su g g est . . . it ’s a m atch , just no t an e x clus ive m atch . T h at N ew B alan ce sn ea k ers j us tl i ke hi s di d t hatm ark . . . . ” ( A pp. I I I , 07- 4454, D ay4 T r . at8. ) Fol l ow i ng an obj ect i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr emi nded the j urythatnotw i t hs t andi ng w hatw as s ai d, w hat i s i m por t anti s “w haty ou r eca l l aboutthe evi dence . ” (I d. ) T he governm entthen w enton to e x p lain th a t “w e ’re n o t su g g e stin g th a t [ S m ith ] lin k e d w h a t h e f o u n d to th e d e f

e n d a n t .T o the e x tent G rav es a rgu es th at th e g o v ern m en t i m p rop erlym inim ized K rap f’s 5 ci r cl i ng of the i m age of a booton t he form s he compl et ed, w e not e hert es t i m onythatat the tim e sh e “ w asn ’trea ll yfo cu sed o n fil li n g o u t th e d esc ri p ti o n sh ee t. ” (A p p . II, 0 7 -44 5 4 , D ay2 T r. at 49 . ) 7 . . [w ] e’ r e nots ugges t i ng t o y ou . . . thatthi s cas e i s r es ol ved bythatevi dence , butthat e v id e n c e . . . m u st b e p u t in to c o n tex t w ith e v e ry th in g e lse in th e c a se a n d it h a s v a lu e to y ou. ” (I d. at9. ) L at er , t he C our ti ns t ruct ed the j urythat“[w ] i t h r es pectt o anyfac t m a tte r, i t is y o u r r e c o lle c tio n a n d y o u rs a lo n e th a t g o v e rn s . A n yth in g th a t c o u n s e l . . . ma yh a v e s a i d wi t h r e s p e c tt o a n yf a c tu a l ma t t e r. . . i s n o tt o b e s u b s t i tu t e d f o ry o u ro wn i ndepende ntr ecol l ect i on. ” (Id . at 67 -68 . ) 1. G r aves ar gues t hatadmi t t i ng the s neake r s i nt o evi dence w as pr ej udi ci al , and that th e g o v e rn m e n t m is c h a ra c te ri z e d S m ith ’s te s tim o n y . T he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not com m i tplai n err or i n ad m i t t i ng the snea kers. U ni t ed Stat es v. Moo re , 375 F. 3d 259, 261 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . Sm i t h cl ear l ys t at ed thathe coul d not be ce r t ai n t hatt he s hoe pr i nton t he count erm at ched the N ew B al ance s neake rbutthat “the footw eari m pr es s i on, i m pr es s i on i n G overnm entE xhi bi t5. 5 [i . e. , the pr i ntl efton t he telle r’s c o u n ter ] . . . c o rre sp o n d s in d e sig n a n d a p p ro x im a telyp h y sic a l siz e w ith G o v e r n m e n tE x h i b i t7 . 1 [ i . e . , t h e l e f tN e w B a l a n c e s n e a k e r ] . ” ( A p p . I I , 0 7 - 4 4 5 4 , D a y 2 T r . at77. ) T her e i s not hi ng t o i ndi cat e thatthe j uryw as i n anyw aym i s l ed. I ndeed, w hen t he governm entappea r ed t o over s t at e the conne ct i on betw een the s hoe pr i ntand the sn e a k e r, th e C o u rt w a s q u ick to c o rre c t it . 5G r aves has nots how n how t he C our t ’ s fai l ur e t o i ns t ructthe j urythatthe 6 g o v ern m en t cou ld h av e c all ed N ea l as a w itn ess “ h ad a p rejud ici al ef fe ct on the ju ry ’s d e lib e ra tio n s s o a s to p ro d u c e a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e ” a g a in s t h im . U ni t ed Stat es v. G uadal upe , 4 0 2 F .3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 8 2. G raves next ar gu es that the D i stri ctC ou rtl acked j uri sdi ct i on t o tryhis case beca us e he ne verr ece i ved a s i gned copyof the i ndi ctm ent , and s eems t o s ugges tthatno su ch d o cu m en t exists. A sign ed co p yo f th e ind ict m en t app ea rs i n the g o v ern m en t’ s su p p lem en tal ap p en d ix. ( S u p p . A p p . at 84 9 -50 . ) 3. G r aves ar gues t hatt he governm entengage d i n pr os ecut or i al m i s conductby in c lu d in g L e slie N e a l o n its w itn e ss list, bu t th e n f a ili n g to c a ll h e r a s a w itn e ss a t trial. 6 A l t hough he conc edes t hatt he governm entw as underno obl i gat i on t o cal l N eal , he c laim s th a t b yn o t ca lli n g h e r, an d in ste a d a d v a n c in g th e th e o ryth a t N e a l co n sp ire d w ith G r aves by“ca s i ng” the bank, t he governm enti nvi t ed the j uryt o m ake i m pr oper in f e re n c e s a b o u t h is g u ilt. T her e w as ampl e evi dence t hata w om an had “ cas ed” the bank. A bank empl oy ee t es t i fi ed thata s us pi ci ous w om an w ear i ng a hea ds car f w as peer i ng thr ough t he bank w in d o w s. A n o th e r e m p lo y e e w a s c o n c e rn e d e n o u g h a b o u t h e r c o -w o rk e r’s re a c tio n to t he w om an thats he copi ed dow n t he l i cens e pl at e of the vehi cl e thatthe unknow n w om an w a s d ri v in g . L a te r i n v e s tig a tio n re v e a le d th a t th e v e h ic le w a s re g is te re d to G ra v e s . G i ven thi s evi dence , i tw as fai rfort he governm entt o ar gue that“put t i ng a s car f over9

y ourfac e and l ooki ng i n [t o a bank] and . . . then w al ki ng t o a ca r. . . coupl ed w i t h t he comm ence m entof an a r m ed r obberys hor t l yther eaf t ert el l s y ou ci r cumst ant i al l ythatt hat w om an w as t her e ca s i ng t he bank. ” ( A pp. I I I , 07- 4454, D ay4 T r . at25- 26. ) A nd, of cour s e, t her e w as al s o evi dence t hataft erhi s arr es t , G r aves entrus t ed hi s per s onal b e lo n g in g s a n d th e k e y s to h is Is u z u R o d e o to N e a l, th a t h e sp e n t ti m e a t h e r a p a rtm e n t, and thats om e of hi s cl ot hi ng and hi s s neake r s w er e found ther e. I n s um , the evi dence and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t her efr om poi nt ed t o N eal as the w om an w ho “ca s ed” the ban k, and w e rej ectG raves’ s ar gu m ent that the g ov ernm ent advan ced a theoryof the case th a t h a d n o s u p p o rt . 4. G ra v e s a rg u e s th a t th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial to su p p o rt h is c o n v ic tio n o n th e a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ry c h a rg e . W e not e G r aves ’ s “veryheavybur den” i n ar gui ng thatther e w as i ns uffi ci ent e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt h is c o n v ic tio n , U ni t ed Stat es v. Leahy , 4 4 5 F . 3 d 6 3 4 , 6 5 7 (3d C ir . 2006) , and w e “vi ew t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) . We n e e d n o tr e p r i s e th e e v i d e n c e we have di s cus s ed above . Suffi ce i tt o s ay , “anyr at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he 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,” a s th e ju ry d id h e re . See D ent , 149 F. 3d at187. 5.10

In hi s A nd ers b ri e f

, H o w a rd P o p p e r, E s q ., ra is e s tw o p o te n tia l is s u e s in N o . 07- 4454, bot h of w hi ch w e r ej ect . A s t o t he fi r s ti s s ue, the “da nger ous w eapon” re f e re n c e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 (d ) n e e d n o t b e sh o w n to b e re a l o r o p e ra b le in o rd e r to s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . B e c ke tt , 208 F. 3d 140, 152 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( fi ndi ng t hatfake bom bs r eas onabl yi ns t i l l fea ri n aver age c i t i zens and qual i fyas danger ous w eapons under18 U . S. C . § 2113( d) ) . A s t o t he al l egat i on thatG r aves ’ s tr i al couns el w as i neff

ect i ve fors t i pul at i ng thatthe bank a ti s s ue w as FD I C i ns ur ed, “[i ] thas lo n g b e e n th e p ra c tice o f th is c o u rt to d e f

e r th e iss u e o f

in e f f e c tiv e n e ss o f

trial c o u n se l to a col l at er al at t ack. ” U

nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 215 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 3 2 7 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )). W e se e n o rea so n to d ep art f ro m th a t p ra c tic e h e re . I n N o. 08- 4183, M i chae l J . E ngl e, E s q. , r ai s es the s ame t w o i s s ues G r aves has r ai s ed w i t h r efe r ence t o s upervi s ed r el eas e. W e have found thos e i s s ues t o be w i t hout m e ri t, a n d w ill n o t r e p e a t o u r d is c u s s io n h e re . III . W e w i l l affirm t he judgm ents of the D i stri ctC ou rt . W e w i l l grantcou nsel s’ m oti on s t o w i t hd raw i n separat e orders.