2006 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
11-6-2006 

# U SA v . Lovett P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4171

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . L o ve tt " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 147. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/147P RE CE DE NT I 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 C as e N o: 05- 4171 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. B R IA N T . L O V E T T , J R ., 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 04- C R
- 32 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e K i m R
. G i bs on
Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

O ct ober24, 2006 Be f o r e : SM I TH, FI SHER, a n d CO W EN , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: N ovember6, 2006) K ar en S. G er l ach O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 1001 L i ber t yA venue2 1450 L i ber t yC ent er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f orAppel l ant L a u ra S . Irw in K el l yR
. L abby O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 700 G r antSt r eet Sui t e 400 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OP I NI ON
S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge
. B ria n T . L o v e tt, Jr. p lea d e d g u ilty o n M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , to m aki ng a fa l s e st at ement t o a fe der al l yl i cens ed fi r earm s deal er i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( a)(6 ), an offens e s ubj ectt o a m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm ent of t en y ear s and a m axi m um of th re e y e a rs o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . See 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 4 (a)(2). P ri o r t o s e n te n c in g , L o v e t t c h a lle n g e d , in tera lia , t he pr esent ence repo rt(PS R ) st at em ent t hat his off ense w as a C l ass C fel onys ubj ect t o a t hr ee y eart erm of s uper vi s ed r el eas e under 18 U
. S.C
. § 3583( b) ( 2)
. I n a mem or andum, t he U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia in iti a lly s us t ai ned Lovet t ’ s obj ect i on, s t at i ng t hat L ovet t ’ s offe ns e ofT he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci sed juri sdi ct i on pur s uantt o 18 1 U. S
. C. § 3 2 3 1
. W e h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S
. C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F
. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 -28 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). 3 convi ct i on expos ed hi m t o a t erm of s uper vise d r el eas e of no m o re th a n o n e y e a r. T h e D istric t C o u rt a m e n d e d its m emora ndum s hor t l yt her eaf t er , r ever s i ng i t s el f and c l ari fy i ng th a t th e sta tu to rym a x im u m ter m o f su p e rv ise d r e le a se w a s in fa ct t h ree y ea rs un d er 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § § 9 2 2 (a)(6), 9 2 4 (a )(2), 3559( a) ( 3) , and 3583( b) ( 2)
. T he C our t s ent ence d L ovet tt o a 16 m ont h ter m of i m pr i s onm entand a thr ee y earper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 1 L ovett ch al l enges onl yt he i m pos i t i on of a thr ee y ear per i od of s upervi s ed rel ease . L ovet tacknow l edges t hat18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 (a ) d e ter m in e s th e lette r c las sif ica tio n o f

h is cr i m i nal offe ns e bas ed on the “maxi m um t erm ori m pr i s onm ent author i zed .
. . . ” H e al s o agr ees t hat th e l et t ercl as s i fi cat i on governs t he max im um t erm of s uper vi s ed r el eas e under18 U
. S. C
. § 3583( b) ( 2)
. B eca us e he c om m i t t ed hi s offe n se of c o n v ictio n b e f

o re th e S u p re m e C o u rt issu e d its o p in io n in U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 ( 2005) , L ovet tar gues t hat under§ 3559( a) t he “maxi m um t erm o f i m pr i s onm ent author i zed” s houl d have be en comput ed bas ed on hi s m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entundert he then mandat or yU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , nott he s t atut or ym axi m um t erm of t en y ear s . T hus , he s ubm i t s t hat , cons i s t entw i t h hi s gui del i ne r ange4 of tw el ve t o ei ght een mont hs , hi s offe ns e under§ 35 5 9 (a) s houl d have be en cl assified as a C l as s E fel onyforw hi ch the term o f su p erv ised release sh o u ld n o t hav e e x ce ed ed o n e y ea r, instead o f a C lass C fe lon ysu b ject t o n o t m o re tha n three y ea rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 (a ). A c c o rd in g to L ovet t , t he i m p os i t i on of thi s l ongert hr ee y eart erm of s upervi s e d r e l e a s e v i o l a t e s the Si xt h A m endmentand cons t i tut es an ex p o st fa c to v io la tio n o f th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . W e conc l ude that the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ycl as s i fi ed L ovet t ’ s o ff

en se as a C l as s C fel onys ubj ectt o a maxi m um of three y ea rs of

su p erv ised release
. “ A s in a ll statu tory cons t ruct i on cas es , w e begi n w i t h the l anguage of the s t atut e. T he fi r s ts t ep i s t o det erm i ne w hethert he l anguage ati s s ue has a pl ai n and unam bi guous m eani ng w i t h r egar d t o t he part i cul ar di s put e i n t he ca s e. T he i nqui r ycea s es i f the s t atut or yl anguage i s unambi guous and th e sta tut or ys cheme i s coher entand cons i s t ent
. ” B ar nhar t v. Sigm on C oalC o. , 534 U
. S. 438, 450 ( 2002) ( quot i ng R obi ns on v. Shel lO i lC o. , 519 U
. S. 3 3 7 , 340 (1 9 9 7 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); s ee al s o Es t at e of C ow ar tv. Nicklos D r i l l i ng C o. , 505 U
. S. 469, 475 ( 1992) (i ns t ruct i ng t hat“[i ] n a s t atut or ycons t ruct i on cas e, t he begi nni ng poi ntm us tbe the l anguage of the st atut e, and w hen a s t atut e s peaks w i t h cl ar i t y t o an i s s ue j udi ci al i nqui r yi nt o t he stat u t e’ s m eani ng, i n al l butt he mostextr aor di nary circu m stan ce , is finishe d ”). Sect i on 3559( a) of t he Feder al C r i m es C ode c las s i fi esSee 1 8 U. S
. C. § 474 ( pr ov iding thatt he count er fei t i ng of 2 obl i gat i ons and s ecur i t i es i s a C l as s B fel ony ) ; 18 U
. S. C
. § 474A ( pr ovi di ng that p er s ons ar e gui l t yof a Cl as s B fel onyi f they co n tr o l or p o sses s ce rt ain d ist inctive p ap er o r th e ink , w aterm ark ors eal of U
. S. currenc y ) ; 18 U
. S. C
. § 514 ( pr ovi di ng t hatt he ut t er i ng of count er fei tobl i gat i ons i s a C l as s B fel ony ) ; 16 U
. S. C
. § 4711( g) ( 2) ( m aki ng vi ol at i on of r egul at i ons r egar di ng t he p revent i on of aq uati c nu i san c e s in t o U
. S
. w at ers a C l ass C fel ony ) ; 33 U
. S. C
. § 1232 ( m aki ng t he vi ol at i on of the cha pt er or r egu l at i on s pert ai ning t o port s and w at erw ay s safetya C l ass D fe lon y ). 5 f e d e r a l c r i m e s b yle tte r g ra d e s “ A ” th ro u g h “ E .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3559( a)
. Som e of t he s t atut or y pr ovi s i ons i n t he Feder al C r i m es C ode s peci fi cal l y s etoutt he l et t ergr ade of t he fe l onyati s s ue. 2 I f the s t atut e of convi ct i on does not des i gnat e t he l et t ergr ade of t he off ense, § 3 5 59( a) s peci fi es t hatt he cl as s i fi cat i on i s bas ed o n th e “ m a x im u m te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t a u th o ri z e d . . . .” T h e p lain tex t o f § 3 5 5 9 (a ) b e g in s a n d e n d s o u r a n a ly sis of w hethert hi s s ect i on’ s u s e of the phr as e “maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entauthor i zed” m eans t he defenda nt ’ s ow n gui del i ne r ange or t he s t atut or y m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm ent
. Sect i on 3 5 5 9 (a ) pr o v id e s tha t a n “ o f f e n se th a t is no t s p e c if ica lly cl as s i fi ed bya l et t er gr ade i n t he sec t i on defi ni ng i t , i s cl as s i fi ed [ b a s e d o n ] th e m a x im u m te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t a u th o ri z e d
. . .S e c tio n 3 5 5 9 (a ) p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: 3 A n offe ns e thati s nots peci fi cal l ycl as s ifi ed b y a l et t er gr ade i n the s ect i on defi ni ng i t , i s cl as s i fi ed i f the m axim um t erm of im pri sonm ent aut ho ri zed is – (1 ) life im p ris o n m e n t, or if th e m a x im u m p e n a ltyis d e a t h , a s a C l a s s A f

e l o n y; ( 2 ) t w e n t y - f

i v e ye a r s o rm o r e , a s a C l a s s B f e l o n y; ( 3) l es s t han tw enty - fi ve y ear s butt en or m or e y ear s , as a C l a s s C f

e l o n y; (4) l ess than t en y ears bu t fi ve o r m ore y ears , as a C l ass D f e lo n y. . . . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 (a ). 6 . ” T hus , t he cl as s i fi cat i on pr oces s begi ns byi dent i fy i ng t he 3

“ o f f e n se ” o f c o n v ictio n a n d d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e a p p lica b le l et t ergr ade ha s been de s i gnat ed. If not , one mustr efe rt o t he
“ m a x im u m ter m o f im p riso n m e n t au th o riz e d .” T h e sta tu te s peci fi cal l ydi r ect s t hatt he fi r s ts t ep i s t o consu lt “the se ct i on defi ni ng” t he cr i m i nal offe ns e t o det erm i ne i f a l et t ergr ade ha s been as s i gned. I f not , t he “maxi m um t erm o f im pr i s onm ent a u th o ri z e d ” is u s e d to a rr iv e a t th e p ro p e r c la s s if ic a tio n . L ovet t as s er t s , w i t hout any s uppor t i ng author i t y , t hatt he m axi m um term of i m pr i s onm entr efe r s t o t he maxi m um g u id e lin e ra n g e . T h is c o n stru c tio n , h o w e v e r, ig n o re s th e p lain t extof the s t atut e thats t ar t s t he cl as sificati on pr oces s by r efe r ence t o t he “s ect i on defi ni ng” the cr i m i nal off en se. T he phr a s e “ t h e s e c t i o n d e f i n i n g i t ” c a n r e f

e ro n l yt o t h e Fe d er al C r i m es C ode as t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes nei t herdefi ne7 c ri m in a l o f

f e n s e s , n o r c la s s if

ys u c h o f f e n s e s b yle tte r g ra d e . I f a l et t ergr ade ha s been a s signe d by“the s ect i on defi ni ng i t , ” the i nqui r yi s atan end. I f no l et t ergr ade ha s been des i gnat ed byt he s t atut e of convi ct i on, t he r efe r ence t o “the sec ti o n d ef

ining it ” is n o t w ith o u t p u rpo se. T h e “ m ax im u m term of i m pr i s onm entauthor i zed, ” i f cont ai ned i n that par t i cul ar sta tu to ryp ro v is io n , w ill p ro v id e th e in f o rm a tio n n e c e ss a ryto p ro p e rl yc la s s if

yth e o f f e n s e . T h is p ro c e ss is s tra ig h tf o rw a rd . T h e re is n o n e e d to con sul tm ore t han t he “ secti on defini ng ” t he cri m i nal offense a n d a s c e rt a in th e “ m a x im u m te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t a u th o ri z e d .” N ot i ce a b l y a b s e n t f

r o m th e t e x t o f t h e s t a tu t e , whi c h w as enac t ed as par t of t he S ent enci ng R eform A ct of 1984 cr eat i ng t he gui del i nes , i s an y l anguage cont empl at i ng t hatt he se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s m u st be c o n su lted a t so m e p o in t in th is pr oces s t o arr i ve att he “maxi m u m te r m of i m pr i s onm ent author i zed. ” W e s houl d not r ead i nt o t he s t atut e an i nt erpr et i ve p ro c e s s w h ic h is n o t p la in ly in c lu d e d th e re in
. See Board of E duc. of H endr i ck H

uds on C entr alSch

. D is t
. v. R ow l ey , 458 U
. S. 176, 190 n. 11 ( 1982) ( obs ervi ng t hat“C ongr es s expr es s es i t s p u rpos e byw or ds
. I ti s forus t o as cert ai n – nei t hert o add n o rt o s ubt r act , nei t hert o del et e nort o di s t or t ”) ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). O uri nt erpr et at i on of § 3559( a) i s cons i s t ent w i t h t hatof s ever al of our si s t ercour t s of appe al s . I n U ni t ed Stat es v.8 C unni ngham , 292 F. 3d 115 ( 2n d C i r . 2002) , t he def endant argued t hat hi s guide lin e range sho uld gov ern t he o ffen se classifica ti o n , as o p p o sed to th e st atuto ry m ax im u m . T h e C o u rt found t hat t he “ar gum enti s w hol l yw i t houts uppor t
. W e thi nk a p lai n rea d ing o f § 3 5 5 9 d em o n str ates th at the m ax im u m term of i m pr i s onm entauthor i zed r efe r s t o t he s t atut or ym axi m um of t he off ens e and nota def

endant ’ s per s onal G ui del i ne r ange. ” I d. at118. Fur t herm or e, i t r eas oned t hat s ubs ect i ons ( a) and ( b) of § 3 5 5 9 “ s h o u l d b e r e a d c o n s i s t e n t l y . ” I d. I tpoi nt ed outt hat s ubs ect i on ( b) s p eci fi es t hatt he “maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm enti s t he t er m author i zed byt he l aw des cr i bi ng t he offe ns e” a nd t hatt hi s cl ear l yappl i es t o t he s t atut or ym axi m um in s u b s e c tio n (a ) a s w e ll. I d. ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. A l

f ar oHer nandez , 453 F. 3d 280, 282 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( decl ar i ng t hat “[t ] he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e i ndi cat es t hatt he maxi m um t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n ti s g l e a n e d f r o m the s ect i on def

i ni ng the off ense , notfr om the m axi m um G ui del i nes s ent ence as cal cul at ed byt he di s t r i ct co u rt and appl i cabl e t o t he def endant

. . . . ” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. A cr es , 1 2 8 F ed
. A p p x . 5 3 8 (7 th C ir
. 20 05 ) ( no t i ng t hat i tw ou l d h ave b een f ri vo l ou s for defen se co u n sel t o arg u e tha t th e c o m p u tat ion o f th e d ef e n d a n t’ s su p e rv ise d re lea se sh o u ld h a v e b e e n c o m p u ted b a se d o n h is g u ideline ra n g e). T he C unni ngham C our tal s o not ed t h at undert he defe nd ant’ s i nterpret at i on t he l et t er grade for t he sam e off ense w oul d varyfr om defen d an tt o defe ndantbas ed on ea ch i ndi vi dual ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng9 th e o f f e n se o f c o n v ictio n . 2 9 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 9
. W e a g re e w ith th is obs ervat i on and not e thatt he r es ul t i ng d ispa r i t yi n s ent ence s w oul d have be en contr aryt o t he Sent enci ng R eform A ct ’ s goal o f u n if o rm ity in s e n te n c in g . See 2 8 U. S
. C. § 991( b) ( s peci fy i ng th a t, i nterali a , the purpos e of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on i s t o es t a b l i s h s ent enci ng pol i ci es and pr act i ces t hat
“ a v o id [ ] un w a rra n ted se n ten c in g d isp a rities a m o n g d e f e n d a n ts w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l t yof s i m i l ar cr i m i nal conduct
. . . . ”) ; 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) ( 6) ( pr ovi di ng t hat cour t s , i n t he i m pos i t i on of s ent ence , s houl d cons i der“the nee d to a v o id u n w a rr a n te d s e n te n c e d is p a ri tie s . . . .” ). B ecause L ov et t ’s m axim um t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease w as pr oper l ycomput ed bas ed on the m axi m um t erm of im p ri so n m en t auth o ri ze d b ythe s tatu te of co n v ict ion as n o m o re than three y ea rs bo th b e fo re a n d af ter B ooker , t her e w as no ex p o s t fa c to i ncrease. In t he absence of an i ncrease in h is p u n i s h me n t , we n e e d n o ta d d r e s s Lo v e t t ’ s c o n s t i tu t i onal a rg u m e n ts. N o n e th e les s, a s L o v e tt a c k n o w led g e d in h is re p ly bri ef, even i f he ha d been e xpos ed t o a gr eat ert erm of su p e rv ise d re lea se p o st- B ooker , t hat w oul d notcons t i tut e an ex p o st fa c to v iolati o n o f t h e D u e P roc ess C laus e u n d er U ni t ed S ta tes v . P e n n a v a ria , 4 4 5 F
. 3 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 3 -24 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). For t he above r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof the D is tr ic t C o u rt
.