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- 3851

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CHAEL DANTZ LE R, 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 ( D . C . N o. 2- 04- cr - 00003- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . H arv eyB artl e, II I

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

O ct ober5, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , F U E N T E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . M i chae l D ant zl erappea l s fr om a Sept ember21, 2009 or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a r evoki ng hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e and s e n t e n c i n g h i m t o 2 4 m o n th s o f i m p r i s o n m e n ta n d 1 2 m o n th s o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . We w ill a f f ir m .F o r sim p licity , w e w ill u se D a n tzle r to re f e r to th e a p p e llan t an d C a rla to re f e r to 1 hi s w i fe. 2 I . Backg r ound O n J anuary6, 2004, a gr and j uryi n the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a r eturned a one counti ndi ctm entchar gi ng D ant zl erw i th pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). D a n tzle r w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju rya n d su b se q u e n tly s e n te n c e d to a 7 2 -m o n th te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t, f

o llo w e d b y3 y e a rs o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . D a n tzle r se rv e d h is p e rio d o f in c a rc e ra tio n a n d b e g a n h is p e rio d o f su p e rv ise d re lea se in J anuary2009. I n the ea r l y - m orni ng hour s of A ugus t12, 2009, s ever al m onths i nt o hi s s upervi s ed re lea se , D a n tzle r a n d h is w if e , C a rla , h a d a n a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g a n e x tra -m a rital a f f a ir thatD ant zl erw as havi ng. T he ar gum entes cal at ed w hen D ant zl err etr i eved a kni fe f r om 1 the ki t chen a nd s l i ced Car l a’ s arm . C ar l a fl ed the home, goti n hercar , and ca l l ed the pol i ce, w i th D ant zl eri n pur s ui t . U l t i m at el y , D ant zl ercaughtup w i th C ar l a and i ns truct ed h e r t o “ p u ll th e ... c a r o v e r” o r h e w o u ld “ k ill [ h e r] .” (A p p . a t 5 0 .) C a rla p u lled h e r c a r to the s i de of the r oad and D ant zl erthen pul l ed i n fr ontof her , puthi s cari n r ever s e, and s m a s h e d in to th e f

ro n t o f C a rl a ’s c a r. D a n tz le r w a s s u b s e q u e n tly a p p re h e n d e d b yp o lic e . O n Sept ember10, 2009, and Sept ember21, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d hear i ngs t o d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rDa n t z l e rh a d v i o l a t e d h i s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . T e s t i f y i n g o n h i s o wn behal f, D ant zl eradamant l ydeni ed C ar l a’ s acc ountof the eve nt s and cl ai m ed thati tw as C ar l a w ho had w i el ded a kni fe a nd pur s ued hi m i n hercar . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfoundT h e G o v e r n m e n tm u s te s t a b l i s h v i o l a t i o n o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e b y a 2 p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . See 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (e)(3). Si nce D ant zl er ’ s fel on- i n- pos s es s i on convi ct i on i s a cl as s C fel ony , he coul d not 3 b e s e n te n c e d to m o re th a n tw o y e a rs f o r a v io la tio n o f

h is s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . See 18 U . S. C . § 3853( e) ( 3) ( “[A ] defe ndantw hos e t erm i s r evoked unde rthi s par agr aph maynot be requ i red t o serve on anysuch revo cat i on . . . m ore than 2 y ears i n p ri son if s uch off ense is a c la s s C o r D f

e lo n y... .” ). 3 C ar l a t o be cr edi bl e, acc ept ed herver s i on of the i nci dent , and conc l uded thatD ant zl erhad vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e byas s aul t i ng hi s w i fe. 2 Si nce D ant zl erw as char ged w i th a G r ade A vi ol at i on, the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes re c o m m e n d e d a se n ten c in g ra n g e o f 1 8 to 2 4 m o n th s o f

im p riso n m e n t, ba se d o n h is cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I I . U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 4( a) . T he s t atut orym axi m um for D a n tzle r’s v io latio n w a s 2 4 m o n th s o f im p riso n m e n t. See 18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) ( 3) . T he 3 G overnm entr eques t ed the maxi m um s ent ence due t o the “s i gni fi canc e of w hat happene d, ” the “da ngert o t he comm uni ty ” and t o C ar l a s peci fi cal l y , the “l i t t l e hope . . . for [D an tzl er’s] reh ab il it ati o n , ” a n d the h igh “li k eli h o o d o f re cidiv ism . ” (A p p . at 19 7 . ) D ant zl er , on the otherhand, r eques t ed a s ent ence bel ow the s t atut orym axi m um , w hi ch he cl ai m ed w as j us t i fi ed i n l i ghtof the “good e ffort ” he made af t erhi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on by w o rk in g a t a c a r w a s h a n d tr y in g to o p e n a c le a n in g b u s in e s s w ith h is w if e . (Id . at 19 9 . ) Fol l ow i ng D ant zl er ’ s al l ocut i on, the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 24 m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t and 1 2 m o n ths o f su p erv ised release . In d o ing so , the C o u rt s t at ed: M r . D an tzl er, I fi nd y ours t at ement s notcr edi bl e. I thi nk that

y ou have e ngaged i n the abus e of y our w ife, as s aul ton y our w if e , b a tterin g y o u r w if

e , an d th is typ e o f

c o n d u c t h a s g o t toT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is m a tte r p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . 4 O urappel l at e j ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 4 stop . A n d in o rde r t o p rotec t so ciety , an d n o t o n ly M s. D an tzl er, butthe publ i c i n gener al fr om y ourconduct , and t o puni s h y ou forw haty ou have done , I’m g oi ng t o comm i ty ou i nt o the cus t odyof the A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , h avi ng r evoked y ours upervi s ed r el eas e, t o tw o y ear s t o be fol l ow ed by one y earof s upervi s ed r el eas e. (A p p . a t 2 0 1 .) A ft erthe D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed j udgm ent , D ant zl ert i m el yappea l ed, a lle g in g th a t h is s e n te n c e is p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le . I I . D i s cus s i on 4 A p p lyin g a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd , U

n itedS ta tes v . Se v illa , 541 F. 3d 226, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , w e r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s a s ent ence i m pos ed fora vi ol at i on of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . A di s tr i ct courtabus es i t s di s cr et i on i f i t“bas ed i t s deci s i on on a cl ear l yerr oneous fac tual concl us i on oran err oneous l egal concl us i on” ori f i tfai l s t o adequa t el yexpl ai n i t s chos en s ent ence . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 -68 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (en b an c). H ow ever , w e r evi ew thos e obj ect i ons thata def endantfai l ed t o r ai s e bef or e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

at s on , 482 F. 3d 269, 274 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . U nder p lai n erro r rev iew , a d ef en d an t m u st establish tha t ( 1 ) th e D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted e rror, (2 ) th e e rro r w a s p lain , (3 ) th e e rro r a f f e c ted h is s u b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d (4 ) f a ilu re to corr ectthe err orw oul d s er i ous l yi m pai rthe fai rnes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on of ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . U ni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 5 0 7 U . S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 6 (19 9 3 ).5

D a n tz le r a rg u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le in tw o re s p e c ts . F i rs t , he clai m s that, i n sentenci ng him , the D i stri ctC ou rti m properl ysoug ht t o p un i sh hi m forthe as s aul ti t s el f as oppos ed t o the vi ol at i on of the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. Second, D ant zl eras s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o addr es s hi s ar gum ent forl eni encybas ed on hi s eff or t s t o gai n and mai nt ai n empl oym entw hi l e on s upervi s ed re lea se . W e w ill re v iew D a n tzle r’s f irst a rg u m e n t f

o r p lain e rro r, b e c a u se h e f a iled to o b je c t to h is s e n te n c e o n th a t b a s is , a n d h is s e c o n d a rg u m e n t f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. V

az quez - Lebr on , 5 8 2 F .3 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (f in d in g th a t f

a ilu re to raise p roc ed u ral error b ef o re the d istri ct co u rtresu lt ed in p lai n erro r rev iew ); S e v illa , 541 F. 3d at231 ( hol di ng thatw her e a pa r typr oper l yr ai s es a “mer i t or i ous fac tual orl egal i s s ue” r el at i ng t o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s , the partyneed notr e- r ai s e thos e i s s ues atthe co n clus ion o f th e se n tenc ing p roc ee d ing to p rese rve an o b jecti o n to the D istri ct C o u rt = s fa il u re to a d d ress the issue s). A . Sa ncti on f or B reach o

f T rust D ant zl erar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed a pr ocedur al err orby cons i der i ng the nee d t o “puni s h [hi m ] forw hat[he ha d] done. ” ( A pp. at201. ) D ant zl er r eads the C our t ’ s pr onouncementt o r efl ectan i nt ent i on t o puni s h hi m forhi s vi ol at i on c o n d u c t, i.e . , the as s aul ton hi s w i fe, i ns t ead of forvi ol at i ng the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , D ant zl ercont ends that , beca us e 18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) does notexpr es s l yi ncorpor at e § 3553( a) ( 2) ( A ) , w hi ch i ns truct s a courtt o cons i derthe n e e d to “ to p ro v id e ju st p u n ish m e n t f o r th e o f f e n se ,” th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in6

co n side ri n g that fa ctor. T h e g o v ern m en t, o n the o ther h an d , arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt s ol el yi nt ended “ t o puni s h D ant zl erforthe br eac h of trus tr epr es ent ed byhi s vi ol at i on of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .” (G o v ’t ’s A n s . B r. a t 2 4 .) W h e n s e n te n c in g a d e f

e n d a n t f o r v io la tin g th e te rm s o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , § 3 5 8 3 (e) instructs a se n tenc ing co u rtto co n side r ce rt ain f ac tors li sted in § 3 5 5 3 (a), i ncl udi ng the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e, the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of th e d e f e n d a n t, a n d th e n e e d to p ro te c t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rt h e r c ri m e s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t. Fur therm or e, ourpr ece denti s cl earthat , cons i s t entw i th the pol i cybehi nd s upervi s ed r el eas e, “[a ] di s tr i ctcourt ’ s pr i m arycons i der at i on i n handi ng dow n a r evoca t i on s ent ence i s the def endant ’ s br eac h of trus t . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); s ee al

s o B ungar , 478 F. 3d at546 ( fi ndi ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a 60- m onth s ent ence upon r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the defe ndant ’ s r eturn t o cr i m i nal act i vi ty , ext ens i ve hi s t oryof vi ol entcr i m es , and r ece nt evi dence of dom es t i c vi ol ence , w hi ch cons t i tut ed a “ s i gni fi cantbr eac h of the trus tthatt he Co u r tr e p o s e d i n h i m” d u r i n g i t s o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g ) ; U. S . S . G. M a n u a l Ch . 7 , p t . A, i ntr oduct orycmt . 3( b) ( “[A ] tr evoca t i on the courts houl d s anct i on pr i m ar i l ythe defe ndant ’ s br eac h of trus t. . . . ”) . I ndeed, D ant zl erhi m s el f r ecogni zes that“r evoca t i on c o u rt s m a yc e rt a in ly p u n is h b re a c h e s o f tru s t... .” (A p p e lla n t’ s R e p ly B r. a t 7 .) R eadi ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s pr onouncementi n i t s ent i r ety , w e under s t and the C our tt o be puni s hi ng D ant zl erforhi s br eac h of trus t , nothi s vi ol at i on conduct . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfi r s ti dent i fi ed D ant zl er ’ s vi ol at i on conduct( “I thi nk thaty ou have e ngagedW h ile th e se n ten c in g c o u rt is re q u ire d to “ m e a n in g f u llyc o n sid e r” th e re lev a n t § 5 3553( a) fac t or s , ther e i s no r equi r ementthatthe j udge “make fi ndi ngs addr es s ed t o eac h of the r el evantfac t or s atthe r i s k of havi ng the s ent ence vaca t ed and the ca s e r emanded forr es ent enci ng. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . H

a le , 1 0 7 F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). R a th e r, § 3583( e) i s s at i s fi ed w hen the s ent enci ng court“[makes ] comm ent s r efl ect i ng thatthe appr opr i at e fa ct or s w er e cons i der ed. ” I d. 7 in the ab u se o f y o u r w ife, assa u lto n y o u r w ife, ba tt ering y o u r w ife.. . . ”). ( A p p . at 20 1 . ) T he C our tthen s hi ft ed foc us t o addr es s the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s i n det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e s ent ence t o i m pos e i n or dert o ful fi l l i t s obl i gat i on t o “ade quat el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence t o al l ow form eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew and t o pr om ot e the per cept i on of fa i rs ent enci ng. ” G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 50 ( 2007) . Speci fi cal l y , the D istric t C o u rt m a d e f

in d in g s c o n c e rn in g : th e n e e d f o r th e se n ten c e to a f

f o rd a d e q u a te det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct( “I thi nk y ou have e ngaged i n the abus e of y ourw i fe, as s aul ton y ourw i fe, batt er i ng y ourw i fe, and this t ype of conduct has gott o s t op. ”) ( A pp. at201 ( emphasi s added) ) , and the nee d forthe s ent ence t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur ther cr i m es of the def

endant( “A nd i n or dert o pr ot ects oci ety , and notonl yM s . D ant zl erbut the p u b li c in g en era l from y o u r co n d u ct. . . . ”). (I d. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen 5 a c k n o w led g e d its a b ili tyto p u n ish D a n tzle r w h ich , as n o ted a b o v e , is a p p ro p ria te. W h ile the l anguage on t hi s poi nti s l es s cl earthan i tcoul d have be en, w e dec l i ne t o as s um e that the C our tfai l ed t o appr eci at e the di s t i nct i on betw een s ent enci ng forcr i m i nal conductand s ent enci ng fora vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. I n s hor t , D ant zl er = s as s ert i on thattheB eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts anct i oned D ant zl erforbr eac hi ng t he 6 c o u rt’s tru st b yv io latin g th e ter m s o f h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se , as o p p o se d to p u n ish in g h im forthe vi ol at i on conducti t s el f, w e nee d notaddr es s D ant zl er ’ s ar gum entconce rni ng t he p r o p e rc o n s tru c t i o n o f

§ 3 5 8 3 ( e ) . Re g a r d l e s s o f th a ts t a tu t o ryc o n s tru c t i o n q u e s t i o n , we ar e conf i dentdi s tr i ctcourt s under s t and that , w hen cons i der i ng a s ent ence fora vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e, theym aynots eek t o puni s h anycr i m i nal conductthatcons t i tut es th e v io la tio n . See Johns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 529 U . S. 694, 700 ( 2000) ( “A l though [] vi ol at i ons of [s upervi s ed r el eas e] oft en l ead t o r ei m pr i s onm ent , the vi ol at i ve conduc tneed notbe cr i m i nal and nee d onl ybe found bya j udge undera pr eponder ance of the evi dence stan d ard , n o t bya juryb ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t. W h ere the a cts o f v iolati o n are c rim in a l in th e ir o w n rig h t, th e ym a yb e th e b a sis f o r se p a ra te p ro se c u tio n , w h ich w o u ld rai se an i ssue of d ou ble j eop ardyi f t he revo cat i on of sup ervi sed rel ease w ere al so p u n ishm en t fo r th e sa m e o ff en se.” (cit ati o n s o m itted)).

8 D i s tr i ctC our tpuni s hed hi m forthe under l y i ng cr i m i nal conductr atherthan forthe br eac h of trus tr epr es ent ed byhi s vi ol at i on conducti s unper s uas i ve. 6 B . C ons i der at i on of A r gum ent s i n Mi t igat i on D ant zl eral s o ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o addr es s hi s ar gum ent f o r m iti g a tio n d u rin g se n ten c in g . S p e c if ica lly , D a n tzle r c o n ten d s th a t th e C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e r e w a r d e d h i s e f

f o r t s t o f i n d e m p l o ym e n tu p o n b e i n g r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n , n a m e l y, thathe w or ked ata ca rw as h fortw o m onths aft erbei ng r el eas ed fr om cus t odyand a s s is te d h is w if

e in s ta rt in g a c le a n in g b u s in e s s . A l engthyexpl anat i on i s gener al l ynotr equi r ed w hen a c our ts ent ence s a def endant in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , s u c h a s h e re . See R i ta v. U ni t ed Stat es , 551 U . S. 338, 356- 57 ( 2007) . I ndeed, “[t ] he appr opr i at enes s of br evi tyorl ength, conci s enes s ordet ai l , w hen t o w r i t e, w hatt o s ay , depends upon ci r cumst ance s . ” Id . at 356. M or eover , a courti s notr equi r ed “t o di s cus s everyar gum entm ade bya l i t i ganti f an ar gum enti s cl ear l yw i thoutm er i t . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 8 3 4 , 8 4 1 (3d C ir .9

2006) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 43 7 F . 3d 32 4, 32 9 (3d C i r. 20 06 )) . A cou rtm ust o n ly re c o g n iz e a n d re s p o n d to th o s e a rg u m e n ts th a t a re n o t f ri v o lo u s . Id . T he r ecor d r efl ect s thatD ant zl erhas exagge r at ed hi s eff or t s t o fi nd empl oym ent fol l ow i ng hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on. A tthe r evoca t i on hear i ng, C ar l a t es t i fi ed thatD ant zl er w as e m p loy ed at a c ar w ash fo r on lytw o m o n ths f o ll o w ing h is r elea se f

rom p ri so n b ef

o re he qui tbeca us e he w as “s i ck of thi s [expl et i ve] . ” ( A pp. at36. ) H e r emai ned unempl oy ed u n ti l th e d ate o f th e e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g six m o n ths later, d esp it e h is pro b ati o n o ff icer’s eff or t s t o hel p hi m fi nd a j ob. Fur therm or e, the onl ypr ogr es s m ade t ow ar d s t art i ng a cl eani ng bus i nes s w as r egi s t er i ng and obt ai ni ng a l i cens e and di s per s i ng fl y er s advert i s i ng th e b u sin e ss , all o f

w h ich C a rla h a n d led . D a n tzle r’s p re c ise ro le in th is e n d e a v o r is unknow n. Si nce ther e i s an i ns uffi ci entfac tual bas i s forD ant zl er ’ s as s ert i on thathe made a “ g o o d ef

fo rt ” (A p p . at 19 9 ) t o fin d em p loym en t w h il e o n su p erv ised release , the C o u rt d id n o t e rr b yn o t e x p re s s ly d is c u s s in g th a t m itig a tio n a rg u m e n t. I I I . C oncl usi on 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 se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt.