2008 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 6-3-2008 

# U SA v . Arche 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 . 06-1382

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_2008

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 2008 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 . Ar che r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1077. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1077NOT 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 os . 06- 1382 /06- 1630 /06- 2321 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ANTHON Y ARCHER,

A ppel l ant( 06- 1382) M A LI K D A V I S,

A ppel l ant( 06- 1630) T YR E E S T RA T T ON,

A ppel l ant( 06- 2321)

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 . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 05- cr - 00068- 3/ 1/ 2) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember6, 2007 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 3, 2008)

OP I NI ONTh e Di s tr i c tCo u r te x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e s e ma t t e r s 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 ju ri s d ic tio n o n a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7

– 2 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W ith re g a rd to s ent enci ng, w e r evi ew “fa ctual fi ndi ngs r el evantt o the G ui del i nes forcl earerr or ” and exer ci s e “pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( en banc ). W e a lso e x erc ise p lena ry re v ie w o v e r c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n s . U ni t ed Stat es v. McKoy , 4 5 2 F . 3 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e re v ie w th e o v e ra ll s e n te n c e f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . C ooper , 437 F. 3d at326–27. 2 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge D e f e n d a n ts A n th o n yA rc h e r, M a lik D a v is, a n d T yre e S tra tto n w e re c h a rg e d w ith cons pi r acyt o comm i tarm ed bank r obbery , arm ed bank r obbery , and us i ng a w eapon d u r i n g a c r i m e o f

v i o l e n c e . A r c h e ra n d D a v i s p l e d g u i l ty, a n d S tr a t t o n w a s c o n v i c t e d b y a ju ry . E a c h w a s s e n ten c e d to a sig n if ica n t term o f

im p riso n m e n t. A rc h e r a n d D a v is appea l thei rs ent ence s , and Str att on appea l s both hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . Forthe r e a s o n s e x p l a i n e d h e r e i n , we a f f i r m. 1 I. F a c ts In N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , d e f e n d a n ts A rc h e r, D a v is, a n d S tra tto n ro b b e d a W a c h o v ia B ank i n Phi l adel phi a, PA . I n t he cour s e of the r obbery , one r obber

— w ho coul d notbe i dent i fi ed bec aus e the def endant s w er e al l w ear i ng m as ks

— beca m e angryw hen he l earned thatthe bank e m pl oy ee w i th the vaul tkeyw as outt o l unch. C ons equent l y , he sh o t h is w e a p o n in to th e f lo o r, ca u sin g o n e o f

th e v ictim s to su sta in a b u llet f ra g m e n t in h er h ea d . D ef

en d an ts r o b b ed the b an k o f a p p rox im ately$ 2 , 7 6 3 . T h eyfled , firstb yca r, a n d w h e n th e yh it a n o th e r v e h ic le a n d f lip p e d th e iro w n c a r, d e f e n d a n ts to o k o f

f o n f o o t.T h e d e f e n d a n ts’ $ 2 9 ,5 3 3 re stitu tio n c o n sis ts o f a $ 3 3 o b lig a tio n to th e b a n k , w h ich is 2 the amountthatcoul d notbe r ecove r ed fr om s um s t ol en, and a $29, 500 obl i gat i on t o the i n s u r e ro f

th e v e h i c l e h i tb y t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n th e i rf

a i l e d c a r - c h a s e g e t - a w a y. 3 Du r i n g f l i g h t , Ar c h e rp o i n t e d a g u n a tp o l i c e o f f i c e r s , a n d th e p o l i c e f

i r e d a th i m, s hoot i ng hi m i n t he arm . A l l thr ee de fenda nt s w er e ul t i m at el yarr es t ed, and the pol i ce w e r e a b l e t o r e c o v e ra l l b u t$ 3 3 o f th e s t o l e n m o n e y. D e f e n d a n ts w e re c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it arm e d b a n k ro b b e ry , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 (C o u n t I ), a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ry, in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2113( d) ( C ountI I ) , and us i ng and ca rry 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 io len c e , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )(1 ) (C o u n t III). A s n o ted , A rc h e r a n d D a v is p le d g u ilty to a ll c o u n ts , a n d S tr a tto n w a s tr ie d b ya ju ry a n d c o n v ic te d o n a ll c o u n ts . A r cherw as s ent ence d t o a 216- m onth t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , a fi ve- y eart erm of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , re s titu tio n in th e a m o u n t o f $ 2 9 ,5 3 3 , a n d a $ 3 0 0 s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t.

2 D avi s w as s ent ence d t o a 340- m onth t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , r efl ect i ng 220 m onths on eac h of C ount s I and I I ( t o run concurr ent l y ) and 120 mont hs on C ountI I I ( t o run cons ecut i vel y ) , a fi ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, r es t i tut i on i n the amountof $29, 533, and a $300 s peci al as s es s m ent . St r att on w as s ent ence d t o a 260- m onth t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , r efl ect i ng 140 m onths on eac h of C ount s I and I I ( t o run concurr ent l y ) and 120 m onths on C ountI I I ( t o run cons ecut i vel y ) , a fi ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, re s titu tio n in th e a m o u n t o f $ 2 9 ,5 3 3 , a n d a $ 3 0 0 s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t. O n appea l , A r cherar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n as s es s i ng tw o cr i m i nal4

hi s t orypoi nt s fora j uveni l e adj udi cat i on fors i m pl e as s aul t . D avi s r ai s es fourobj ect i ons to h is s e n ten c e : (1 ) th a t th e c a re e r c rim in a l en h a n c e m e n t h e re c e iv e d o v e r-re p re se n ts h is crim inal h ist o ryan d (2) v iolates h is Six th A m en d m en t r igh ts, (3) the D istri ct C o u rt im p ro p e rlyim p o se d a ten -y e a r m a n d a to rym in im u m se n ten c e , an d (4 ) th e u lti m a te s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. Fi nal l y , St r att on r eques t s a new tr i al and/ ors ent enci ng hear i ng, cl ai m i ng thathe w as pr ej udi ced a ttr i al bythe G overnm ent ’ s openi ng s t at ement a n d th e a d m iss io n o f

c e rta in e v id e n c e . H e f u rth e r c o n ten d s th a t h is s e n ten c e is unr eas onabl e and thathe s houl d r ece i ve a l ow ercr i m i nal hi s t orycal cul at i on underthe amendm ent s t o t he U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes thatt ook eff ecton N ovember1, 2007. I I . D i s cus s i on A . A nthonyA r cher A r cherar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d nothave a s s es s ed hi m tw o cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s forhi s j uveni l e adj udi cat i on fors i m pl e as s aul tbeca us e the fa ct s of the i nci dentthatgave r i s e t o t hatadj udi cat i on ar e i n di s put e. Speci fi cal l y , as expl ai ned i n t he Pr e- Sent ence R eport , the j uveni l e pet i t i on forthe s i m pl e as s aul tchar ged thatA r cherhad p o in te d a h a n d g u n a t a n u n id e n tif ie d m a n a n d d e m a n d e d th a t h e re m o v e h is c lo th e s . D ur i ng an i nt ervi ew w i th t he pr obat i on offi ce, A r cherdes cr i bed the i nci dentas a s tr eet fi ghtbetw een hi m and anothery oung m an. H e i ns i s t ed thathe di d notpoi nta gun or d e m a n d th a t th e y o u n g m a n re m o v e h is c lo th e s. B e c a u se th e d e tails o f th e ju v e n ile adj udi cat i on ar e i n di s put e, A r chercont ends thatthe PSR ’ s r eport i ng of the adj udi cat i on5

w as “unr el i abl e” a nd the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r el i ance on i truns afoul of Shepar d v. U ni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13 ( 2005) . T hi s ar gum entfai l s beca us e, w hetherthe i nci denti nvol ved a g u n o r w a s m e re lya stre e t b ra w l, i t is still an a d ju d ica tio n f

o r sim p le a ss a u lt th a t re su lts in a tw o -po int ad d it ion to A rch er’s crim inal h ist o ry . T h u s, ev en assu m ing that A rch er’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f

th e in c id e n t re su lti n g in th e ju v e n ile a d ju d ica tio n is c o rre c t, he w o u ld still rec e iv e tw o p o in ts f o r it u n d e r U .S .S .G . § § 4 A 1 .1 (b ) & 4 A 1 .2 (a )(1 ). In th is c o n tex t, the D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yd eterm ined A rch er’s crim inal h ist o ryu n d er the ad v isory G u id e lin e s . B . M a lik D a v is D a v is f irst c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e e x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n to departdow nw ar d pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3( b) beca us e hi s des i gnat i on as a ca r eer offe nderunderU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( a) over - r epr es ent s hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . A bs entl egal e rr o r, w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r a D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n n o t to d e p a rt . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 467 F. 3d 834, 838 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed D avi s ’ s ar gum entthatthe ca r eeroffe nderdes i gnat i on over - r epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryand conc l uded thati tdi d not . T her e i s no al l egat i on thatthe C our tm i s under s t ood i t s r ol e orot herw i s e comm i t t ed l egal err or . A ccor di ngl y , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der the i s s ue of di s cr et i on. D avi s al s o ar gues thathi s des i gnat i on as a ca r eeroffe nderunder U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( a) vi ol at es hi s Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s beca us e hi s pr i or6

c o n v ictio n s w e re n o t ch a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t o r p ro v e d to a ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . H ow ever , beca us e the ca r eeroffe nderdes i gnat i on di d notexpos e D avi s t o a p e n a lty b e y o n d th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m , th e re is n o c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( en banc ) ( “J udi ci al fac t fi ndi ng i n t he cour s e of s el ect i ng a s ent ence w i thi n the perm i s s i bl e r ange doe s notoffe nd the Fi fth and S ixth A m en d m en t r igh ts t o a jurytr ial an d p roo f b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t. ”). D av is’ s n ex t con tention is th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in im p o sing the m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 924( c) fori nt ent i onal di s char ge of a w eapon dur i ng a c ri m e o f v iolen ce b ec au se itw as n o t cl ea r w h ich d ef en d an t fi red the w ea p o n . H o w ev er, it i s w e ll es tab lish e d th a t a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t is liab le f

o r th e re a so n a b lyf

o re se e a b le a c tio n s o f

e a c h o f h is o r h e r c o -c o n s p ir a to rs . P i nker t on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 328 U . S. 640, 6 4 7

– 4 8 (1 9 4 6 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. R am os , 147 F. 3d 281, 286 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( appl y i ng P i nker t on liab ili tyin th e c o n tes t o f § 9 2 4 (c )); U

ni t ed Stat es v. C as i ano , 113 F. 3d 420, 4 2 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (sam e). F in a lly , D a v is c laim s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to tak e in to a c c o u n t ce rta in 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) cons i der at i ons — s uch as hi s y outh and r emors e forhi s i nvol vement i n the eve nt s of convi ct i on— i n fas hi oni ng an appr opr i at e s ent ence . W e must“det erm i ne i f the [C]ourtact ed r eas onabl yi n i m pos i ng the r es ul t i ng s ent ence . . . bycons i der i ng t he r el evantfac t or s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . H avi ng r evi ew ed the r ecor d, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe C our tappr opr i at el yas s es s ed ea ch of the7

re le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs in th is c a s e . C . T yr ee Str att on St r att on, the onl yappel l anttr i ed bya j ury , cont ends thathe w as deni ed a f ai rt r i al and thathi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. W i th r egar d t o the tr i al , he as s ert s thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s openi ng s t at ementw as i m pr operbeca us e i n i ts he s ai d the fol l ow i ng: T he evi dence w i l l al s o s how thatthe thr eatthatO ffi cerShackl es per cei ved w as veryr eal beca us e the gun thatA nthonyA r cherw as hol di ng thatdayand poi nt i ng in the o ff icer’s d ir ec ti o n w as lo ad ed . Itw as a T au rus s em iauto m ati c p ist o l. It wa s l o a d e d wi th h o l l o w- p o i n tb u l l e t s . An d a tth e tr i a l y o u wi l l h e a rth a th o l l o wpoi ntbul l et s ar e the s or tof bul l et s thatar e des i gned t o penetr at e K evl arves t s , the b u lletp ro o f

v e sts th a t p o lice o f

f ice rs w e a r. T h e se a re th e k in d o f b u llets you w ill hear that ar e com m on l ykn ow n as “co p-ki l l er” bul l et s. A pp. 55–56. St r att on di d notobj ectt o the s t at ementattr i al , and thus w e r evi ew i tfor p lai n erro r un d er F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 5 2 . T o estab li sh p lai n erro r, St r att on m us t“s how notonl ythaterr oraff ect ed the out come of t he tr i al , butthatthe err or w as cl earorobvi ous undercurr entl aw . I f thes e r equi r ement s ar e met , w e m ay r ever s e . . . i f the err or‘ s er i ous l yaff ect [ed] the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R i vas , 493 F. 3d 131, 136 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Johns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 0 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 7 0 (1 9 9 7 )) . E ven as s um i ng thatthes e thr es hol d i nqui r i es ar e meti n thi s cas e, w e do notbel i eve that the r efe r ence t o “cop- ki l l er ” bul l et s ( w hi ch, i ndeed, i s how thes e bul l et s ar e know n) w o rk e d to p re

ju d ic e S tr a tto n in a w a yth a t w o u ld “ s e ri o u s ly af f e c t” h is tr ia l. A l ong t he s ame t heme, St r att on cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by8

overrul i ng hi s obj ect i on t o a pol i ce of fi cer ’ s t es t i m onythatthe bul l et s i n A r cher ’ s gun w er e “c op- ki l l er ” bul l et s . H e ar gues thatthe r efe r ence w as unfai r l ypr ej udi ci al and the p r e j u d i c e o u tw e i g h e d a n yp r o b a t i v e v a l u e u n d e rF e d e r a l R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 3 . We re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ru lin g f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452, 461 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he C our tas s es s ed the evi dence , fi ndi ng i tpr obat i ve on the i s s ue of da ngerand on the i s s ue of c ons pi r acy . I tal s o s oughtas s ur ance fr om the G overnm entthatther e w oul d be no furtherus e of the t erm i n s ubs equentpor t i ons of the trial. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e C o u rt’s a n a ly sis stru c k a n a p p ro p ria te b a lan c e u n d e r R u le 403. W i th r egar d t o hi s s ent ence , St r att on ar gues thati ti s unr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the Pr e- Sent ence R eport ’ s advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange, w hi ch inclu d ed en h an ce m en ts fo r th e a cti o n s o f S tr att o n ’s co -de fe n d an ts, an d b ec au se th e C o u rt di d notpr oper l yeval uat e the § 3553( a) fac t or s i n i t s ul t i m at e s ent ence . A s di s cus s ed above, a def

endanti s l i abl e forthe r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e ac t i ons of hi s orhercocons pi r at or s , s o hi s fi r s tar gum enti s unavai l i ng. N ext , the r ecor d r efl ect s thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l ycons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s , and i ndeed s oughtt o fas hi on a s ent ence thatw as i n l i ne w i th t hatof St r att on’ s co- cons pi r at or s and r efl ect ed the s ever i tyof the offe ns e, butw as s t i l l w el l bel ow the s t atut orym axi m um beca us e the D i s tr i ctJ udge

“ h a rb o r[ e d ] th e (m o d e st) h o p e th a t d e f e n d a n t’s re lea se in m id d le a g e w ill f in d h is ant i s oci al fi r es banked s uffi ci ent l ythathe may , j us tpos s i bl y , r eent ers oci etyas s om ethi ng9

s h o rt o f th e ‘u rb a n te rr o ri s t’ h e m a tu re d in to o n N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 .” A ft er this case w as subm i t t ed, S tratt on m ov ed to supp l em ent hi s bri ef t o reque st r emand t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tfora new s ent enci ng hear i ng on the gr ound thathi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw oul d be ca l cul at ed di ffe r ent l yi n l i ghtof the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s amendm entt o t he cr i m i nal hi s t orypr ovi s i ons of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends that , i n l i ghtof A m endment709, he w oul d r ece i ve onl yone cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt , r atherthan thr ee, forhi s pr evi ous convi ct i ons for bur gl ary , pos s es s i on of an i ns trum entof a c r i m e, and cr i m i nal cons pi r acy , beca us e he w as se n ten c e d f

o r a ll th re e o f

th o se c rim e s o n th e sa m e d a y . W e n e e d n o t co n sid e r th e m e rits o f th is a rg u m e n t b e c a u se A m e n d m e n t 7 0 9 w a s n o t g iv e n re tro a c tiv e e f f e c t p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (c ). See a l so U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ood , F. 3d , 2008 W L 1902663 (3d C ir . M ay1 , 2 0 0 8 ). * * * W e t hu s affi rm on al l i ssues.