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 4-18-2006 

# U SA v . C ar t e r 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 . 04-3782

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_2006

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 2006 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 . C ar t e r " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1258. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1258T he H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof N ew * J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P 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 N o: 04- 3782 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DEN NI S W I LLI AM CA RTER D en n is C arter, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin

D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 03- cr - 00703 Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 30, 2006 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d C O W E N , C i rcui tJud ges, a n d T H O M P S O N , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 18, 2006 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th i s f e d e r a l c r i mi n a l c a s e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. 1 § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r C a rt e r’ s c o n v ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291 and overhi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 2 S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antD enni s C ar t erw as i ndi ct ed, tr i ed and c onvi ct ed bya j ury , and s ent ence d forvi ol at i ng: ( 1) 18 U . S. C . § 2133( d) ( bank r obbery ) and § 2 ( ai di ng and abe t t i ng) ; and ( 2) 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( us i ng and ca r r y i ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of
v iolen ce ) an d § 2 (aiding an d ab ett ing ). C arter ha s ap p ea led: (1) the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of C ar t er ’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s the I ndi ctm ent , bas ed on the al l egat i on thatthe governm entvi ol at ed the t erm s of a pr offe rl ett erw hen i tr evea l ed C art er ’ s pr offe r ed s t at ement s and i nform at i on t o t hi r d par t i es ; ( 2) the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s admi t t ance of the t es t i m onyof an e xper ton bootpr i nt s as w el l as the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l i m i t at i ons on t he d ef en se’s c ross -ex am ination o f th is w itn ess; an d (3) the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f C arter’s M ot i on forJ udgm entof A cqui t t al pur s uantt o Fed. R . C r i m . Pr o. 29 w i t h r es pectt o hi s 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) count . W e fi nd no m er i tt o C art er ’ s cl ai m s and w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t w ith re sp e c t to h is c o n v ictio n . C a rte r rig h tlya rg u e s, h o w e v e r, th a t h e is ent i t l ed t o r es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . C ons equent l y , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent as t o C ar t er ’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng. 1 I. O n th e m o rn in g o f

Ju ly1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , thr e e m e n d re ss e d in b lac k f e m a le M u slimD ur i ng t he i nves t i gat i on of the cr i m e s cene , a bootpr i nti m pr es s i on w as l i ft ed fr om 2 the tell er c o u n ter. 3 garm ent s and w i t h t hei rfac es cover ed byvei l s r obbed a br anch of the N at i onal Penn B ank i n Phi l adel phi a. A ccor di ng t o t he t es t i m onyof the bank manager , one of the
r obber s ent er ed the bank manager ’ s offi ce, poi nt ed a ha ndgun ather , and duct
- t aped he r ankl es . A ccor di ng t o t he t es t i m onyof a ba nk t el l er , a s econd r obberpoi nt ed a ha ndgun at herand j um ped overt he t el l ercount er . W hen the t el l eri nform ed the r obberthatal l of 2 t he bank’ s m oneyw as i n t he vaul t , he di r ect ed hert o t he vaul t . A ft erthi s s econd r obber di s cover ed thatt he t el l erhad onl ypartof the vaul t ’ s combi nat i on and thatthe bank
m anage rhad the otherpar t , t he fi r s tr obbercarr i ed the duct
- t aped ba nk m anage rt o t he vaul t . T ogether , t he bank managerand the t el l erw er e abl e t o open the vaul t , and the
r obber s pl ace d appr oxi m at el y$175, 995 i n a w hi t e s hoppi ng bag bef or e fl eei ng the bank and head i ng t ow ard nearbyt rai n tr acks. I n t he meant i m e, t he thi r d r obberfor ced the bank’ s s ecur i t yguar d i nt o a lun ch roo m an d d o w n o n to the flo o r. T h e se cu ri tyg u ard d id n o t see w h ethe r th e third
r obberhad a ha ndgun, butbank s ur vei l l ance phot os s how ed the thi r d r obberhol di ng a han dg un . T his t hir d robb er fl ed the ban k lobbyseparat el yfrom the o t her tw o robb ers . T hats ame m or ni ng, a comm ut erw ai t i ng out s i de a ne arbytr ai n s t at i on i n her parked ca rw i t nes s ed a man dr es s ed i n bl ack M us l i m garm ent s , s neake r s , and l at ex gl oves comi ng up t he tr ai n s t at i on s t ai r s . H e w as fol l ow ed bytw o otherm en al s o w ear i ng M us l i m garm ent s and l at ex gl oves , one of w hom w as carr y i ng a w hi t e bag. T heyr an t o aI tw as l at erdet erm i ned thatC ar t erhad bee n r es i di ng atthi s addr es s w i t h hi s gi r l fr i end. 3 4 w h i t e P o n t i a c p a r k e d n e a rb y. T h e w i t n e s s c a l l e d 9 1 1 , a n d a s th e w h i t e P o n t i a c d r o v e b y, sh e g o t o u t o f

h e r c a r a n d d e sc rib e d to th e d isp a tch e r th e w h ite P o n tiac , inc lu d in g its l i cens e t ag number , E Y W - 2468. C ar t erw as the r egi s t er ed ow nerof thi s w hi t e Pont i ac. T he FB I agent s r es pondi ng t o t he s cene of the r obberys ubs equent l yl earned that the w h it e P o n ti ac h ad b ee n issue d a traff ic su m m o n s w ith an ad d ress o f 4 5 3 4 O ld Y o rk R oad i n Phi l adel phi a. A ppr oxi m at el ys i x hour s aft erthe r obbery , the w hi t e Pont i ac w as 3 fou nd parked near this add res s. A s the ag ents w ere cond ucti ng survei l l ance o f t he h ou se at4534 O l d Y or k R oad, a man, l at eri dent i fi ed as C art er , pul l ed up i n a gol d H yundai and ent er ed the hous e. H e s ubs equent l yexi t ed the hous e and gotback i nt o t he H yundai . T he
a g e n ts a p p ro a c h e d C a rte r a s h e w a s e n ter in g th e H yu n d a i an d a sk e d h im if h e w a s D e n n is C ar t er . C ar t erdeni ed hi s i dent i t yand gave the age nt s a fa l s e name. C art erw as then handcuf fed a nd pat t ed dow n. C ar t erhad $2, 692 on hi s per s on as w el l as key s t o a l ockbox. H e w as al s o w ear i ng T i m ber l and boot s . A l at ers ear ch of the gol d H yundai found a . 45 cal i berT aurus handgun i n a w hi t e s hoppi ng bag. T he age nt s al s o obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antfor4534 O l d Y or k R oad. T heyfound tw o s e ts o f

b la c k M u s lim g a rm e n ts , la te x g lo v e s , a n d a lo c k b o x u n d e r C a rt e r’ s b e d . U s i ng t he keyfound i n C ar t er ’ s pos s es s i on, the age nt s opened the l ockbox and f ound $ 5 3 , 0 0 0 in ca sh , w rap p ed in N ati o n al P en n B an k w rap p ers. T h e w rap p ers w ereA not herpai rof Ti m ber l and boot s w as found out s i de of 4534 O l d Y or k R oad, butt he 4 boot s C ar t erw as w ear i ng att he t i m e of hi s arr es t , and notthe boot s found out s i de the h o u se, w ere co m p are d to the b o o t pri n t i m p ression s tak en fro m the tell er c o u n ter. 5 s u b s e q u e n t l yf

o u n d t o h a v e Ca r t e r ’ s f

i n g e rp r i n t s o n th e m. 4 T he governm entt hen had tw o pr offe rm eet i ngs w i t h C art er , befor e w hi ch he s i gned a s t andar d pr offe rl et t er . T he l ett erexpl ai ned thatanys t at ement s ori nform at i on provided b yC art er duri ng his proffer di scussi on s w ou l d n ot be “used d i rect l yagainst [hi m ] i n anycr i m i nal cas e, ” butal s o pr ovi ded that“the governm entm aym ake de r i vat i ve us e of, and maypur s ue i nves t i gat i ve l eads s ugges t ed by , s t at ement s m ade ori nform at i on pr ovi ded” dur i ng t he pr offe rdi s cus s i ons . T he governm ents ubs equent l yfai l ed t o r eac h an agr eementw i t h C ar t er , ci t i ng hi s l ack of cooper at i on. FB I Speci al A gentJ ohn K i t zi ngerthen appr oache d one of Car t er ’ s al l eged acc es s or i es , A bdul B i l al , and the fa m i l yof anotheral l eged a cce s s ory , Sean K el l ey , i n an a p p a re n tlyu n su c c e ss f

u l atte m p t to se c u re th e ir c o o p e ra tio n . A g e n t K itzin g e r re v e a led to t hese t hir d p art i es that C art er had i den t i fi ed B i l al and K el l eyas hi s cocon spi rat ors. A tC ar t er ’ s t r i al , t he governm entoffe r ed the phy s i cal evi dence des cr i bed above as w el l as t he t es t i m onyof the bank e m pl oy ees . A ddi t i onal l y , the governm entoffe r ed the t est i m on yof S and ra W i ers em a, an F B I em ploy ee qu al i fi ed as an exp erti n b oo tpri nts , w ho compar ed the Ti m ber l and boot s C art erw as w ear i ng atthe t i m e of hi s arr es tt o a phot ogr aph of the bootpr i nti m pr es s i ons found on the t el l ercount er . W i er s ema t es t i fi ed t hat C art er’ s boo t s could hav e m ade the i m press i on s. T he d efen se at t em pted t o cross-Wi t h r e s p e c tt o a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n to n a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s th e i n d i c t me n t , we 5 e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r l e g a l c o n c lu s io n s a n d re v ie w f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. N

ol an- C ooper , 1 5 5 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).

6 e x a m in e W ier se m a w ith p ictu re s o f o th e r T im b e rla n d b o o ts o b tain e d f ro m th e in ter n e t, ask ing h er if the se o ther b o o ts al so co u ld h av e m ad e the im p ression s. T h e D istri ct C o u rt cuts hor tt hi s cr os s - exami nat i on aft erW i er s ema expl ai ned thats he w as onl yt es t i fy i ng th a t C a rte r’s b o o ts c o u ld h a v e m a d e th e im p re ss io n s, a n d n o t o f f e rin g a n o p in io n a s to w h e th e r o th e r k in d s o f

T im b e rla n d b o o ts c o u ld h a v e m a d e th e im p re ss io n s a s w e ll.

II. W i t h r es pectt o C ar t er ’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s the I ndi ctm ent , w e fi nd no err or i n t he 5 D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entt hatC ar t erw as ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef f orthe al l eged vi ol at i ons of t he pr offe rl et t er . A gentK i t zi nger ’ s di s cus s i ons w i t h A bdul B i l al and the fa m i l yof Sean K el l eydi d notcons t i tut e di r ectus e of the i nform at i on pr ovi ded byC art erdur i ng the proffer sess i on againsthim i n h i s cr i m i nal cas e. R at her, tho se di scussi on s const i tuted use o f th a t in f o rm a tio n f

o r t h e p u rp o s e o f

d e v e lo p in g d e ri v a tiv e e v id e n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. P i elago , 1 3 5 F . 3 d 7 0 3 , 7 1 0 -71 1 (11 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (ho lding that u sing the d ef en d an t’ s pr offe rs t at ement s t o i ndi cta thi r d par t yw ho s ubs equent l ypl ed gui l t yand t es t i fi ed ag ains t th e d ef

en d an t did n o t violate a p rof fe r ag ree m en t bec au se th e third p arty ’s t es t i m onyw as bydefi ni t i on “der i vat i ve evi dence ” and the governm entdi d noti ntr oduce th e d e f e n d a n t’ s a c tu a l s ta te m e n ts o r p ro f f e re d in f o rm a tio n a s e v id e n c e a t tr ia l) . A c c o rd in g ly , the g o v e rn m e n t co m p lied w ith th e ter m s o f th e p ro f f e r le tter b e c a u se itC a rte r o rig in a llya lso o b jec ted to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in c lu sio n o f a su m m a ryo f

h is 6 p ro f f e r sta tem e n ts in its T ria l M e m o ra n d u m . In h is b rie f o n a p p e a l, C a rte r w a iv e d th is i ssue, bu tw e no t e t hat the p roffer l et t er s pecifi cal l yal l ow ed the go vernm ent t o u se C ar t er ’ s pr offe rs t at ement s dur i ng t he tr i al i n t he eve ntthathe t es t i fi ed as a w i t nes s and h i s t e s t i m o n y w a s m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n tf r o m h i s p r o f

f e rs t a t e m e n t s . A c c o r d i n g l y, i ncl udi ng a s um m aryof hi s s t at ement s i n t he governm ent ’ s T r i al M emora ndum i n or der t o n oti fyt he D i stri ctC ou rtof the po ssi ble i ssues ar i si ng from such p erm i ssi ble uses al so d id n o t con sti tute d ir ec t use o f h is st atem en ts ag ains t him in v iolati o n o f h is pro ff er lett er. B eca us e ther e w as no vi ol at i on of the pr offe rl ett er , w e nee d notcons i derw hether 7 di s m i s s i ng t he i ndi ctm entw oul d be an appr opr i at e r emedyfors uch a vi ol at i on. W h e re a d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g to a d m it o r e x c lu d e e v id e n c e is b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le 8 i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence , w e r evi ew thatdet erm i nat i on forabus e of d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sokol ow , 9 1 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 7 m a d e o n lyd e riv a tiv e u se o f C a rte r’s sta tem e n ts, a n d c o n se q u e n tlyC a rte r w a s e n tit led to 6
n o r e m e d y. 7 W e al s o fi nd t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byadmi t t i ng t he 8 t es t i m onyof the Sandr a W i er s ema, t he bootpr i ntexpert . W hetherthe boot s C art erw as w ear i ng w hen he w as arr es t ed s i x hour s aft erthe r obberycoul d have made the bootpr i nt im p re ss io n s f

o u n d o n th e telle r c o u n ter w a s p ro b a tiv e o f C a rte r’s a lleg e d p a rticip a tio n in t he r obbery , and expe r tt es t i m onyai di ng the j uryi n m aki ng s uch compar i s ons has l ong b e e n ju d g e d a d m is s ib le b yth e f e d e ra l c o u rt s . See U

nited S tates v. R ose , 731 F. 2d 1337, 1345- 47 ( 8t h C i r . 1984) ( hol di ng t hatther e w as no err ori n admi t t i ng expertt es t i m ony compar i ng t he def

endant ’ s s hoe t o a s hoe pr i ntl i ft ed fr om a cr edi tuni on t el l ercount er aft er an arm ed robb erybym asked m en). F urther, the d efen se’ s at t em pted cr ossexami nat i on of thi s expertw i t h pi ctur es of otherT i m ber l and boot s thatcoul d have madeA di s t r i ctcour tm ayi m pos e r eas onabl e l i m i t s on cr os s - exami nat i on bas ed on conc erns 9 a b o u tf a c t o r s s u c h a s “ h a r a s s m e n t , p r e j u d i c e , c o n f

u s i o n o f th e i s s u e s , th e w i t n e s s ’ s a f e ty, ori nt err ogat i on t hati s r epet i t i ve oronl ym ar gi nal l yr el evant , ” and w e r evi ew a di s t r i ct c o u rt ' s d e c is io n to lim it c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C handl er , 3 2 6 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). O n r evi ew of a Rul e 29 mot i on, w e w i l l s us t ai n a j uryver di cti f, vi ew i ng the evi dence 10 i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t hat th e g o v e rn m e n t e s ta b lis h e d th e 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. See U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 8 t he i m pr es s i ons w as notr el evantt o t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m onythatC art er ’ s boot s coul d have
m ade the i m pr es s i ons , and ther efor e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by 9 l i m i t i ng t he d efen se’ s cr oss- exam i nati on of thi s w i t ness t o rel evan tm at t ers . Fi nal l y , w i t h r es pectt o C ar t er ’ s M ot i on forJ udgm entof A cqui t t al on hi s 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) count s ( us i ng and ca r r y i ng a fi 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 l i ghtof the phy s i cal evi dence l i nki ng C art ert o t he cr i m e–i ncl udi ng the

10 T im b e rla n d b o o ts h e w a s w e a rin g , the h a n d g u n f o u n d in a w h ite s h o p p in g b a g in th e g o ld H yundai , and the bl ack M us l i m r obes , l at ex gl oves , and $53, 000 i n N at i onal Penn B ank
m o n e yw ra p p e rs w ith C a rte r’s f in g e rp rin ts o n th e m f

o u n d a t 4 5 3 4 O ld Y o rk R o a d

– a n d in lig h t o f th e f a c t th a t h is v e h icle w a s u se d a s th e g e taw a yv e h icle a n d th e n f o u n d n e a r h is
r es i dence hour s aft ert he r obbery , w e hol d t hata r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ctcoul d have c o n c lu d e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t C a rte r w a s o n e o f th e th re e ro b b e rs. F u rth e r, in l i ghtof the handgun f

ound i n t he gol d H yundai , as w el l as the t es t i m onyof the bank
m anage rand bank t el l erand the evi dence pr ovi ded bythe bank s ur vei l l ance p h o to s– w h ich to g e th e r im p lied th a t all th re e ro b b e rs w e re a rm e d w ith h a n d g u n s– w e h o ldA ddi t i onal l y , w e not e thati n l i ghtof the natur e of the cr i m e–the r obberyof a 11 b a n k

– a n d th e e x ten d e d u se o f f ire a rm s d u rin g th e c rim e , a re a so n a b le trie r o f f a c t co u ld have c oncl uded bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatC art erhad ai ded and a bet t ed the us e of f ir e a rm s e v e n if

h e d id n o t p e rs o n a lly c a rr ya h a n d g u n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 76 F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 2 9 -3 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). t hata r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ctcoul d have c oncl uded bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatC ar t er w as arm ed w i t h a handgun dur i ng t he r obbery . A ccor di ngl y , a r eas onabl e tr i erof fa ct 11
c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d e s ta b lis h e d a ll o f th e e le m e n ts o f

1 8 U .S .C § 9 2 4 (c) b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t, an d the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyd en ied C arter’s M o tio n f o r Ju d g m e n t o f

A c q u itt a l. I n s um , fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ngs w i t h r es pectt o C ar t er ’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s the I ndi ctm ent , the evi dent i aryi s s ues , and C ar t er ’ s M ot i on forJ udgm entof A cqui t t al . A s the governm entconce ded i n i t s br i ef, h o w e v e r, C a rte r is e n tit led u n d e r o u r p re c e d e n ts to a re m a n d f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n o f

h is s ent ence i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ooker . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162, 165- 66 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l al s o vaca t e the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s j udgm entas t o C ar t er ’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng.