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 3-10-2010 

# U SA v . M anley Grey 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 . 08-2438

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_2010

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 nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M a nley Gr ey " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1753. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1753NOT 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. 08- 2438 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M A N L E Y G R E Y ,

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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C ri m inal N o . 0 6 -cr-52 8 -2 (H o n o rab le S tanleyR . C h esler) Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary11, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 10, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . D e f e n d a n t M a n ley G re ya /k /a J o h n L o w p lea d e d g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it H obbs A ctr obbery( 18 U . S. C . § 1951( a) ) and us e of a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of a c r i m e of2

vi ol ence ( 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ) . G r eyw as s ent ence d t o 191 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . G r ey c h a l l e n g e s h i s s e n t e n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. G r eycons pi r ed al ong w i t h t hr ee other s t o r ob an arm or ed ca r . E nl i s t i ng E vr ol D ean, an empl oy ee of

t he arm or ed ca rcompany , t he fourpl anned t o s neak G r eyand anotherco- cons pi r at ori nt o t he arm or ed ca rt hr ough an unl ocked door . G r eyand the cohor tw oul d t hen “i ns t ruct ” D ean t o dr i ve t o a s ecl uded l ocat i on. T he fourt h m emberof t he cons pi r acy , M arvi n T i l l m an, agr eed t o fol l ow t he arm or ed ca rand tr ans fert he money t o hi s get aw ayvehi cl e. A ccor di ng t o G r ey , t he amountt heypl anned t o s t eal w as appr oxi m at el y$150, 000. H ow ever , t he t ar get ed arm or ed ca rw oul d be ca r r y i ng over$1 m i l l i o n o n t h e d a y o f

t h e r o b b e r y. T he fourm en comm i t t ed the r obberyon February14, 2006. D ean, as pl anned, l eft one of the door s t o t he arm or ed vehi cl e unl ocked a s he ent er ed a ba nk i n L i vi ngs t on, N ew Je rse yw ith h is u n w itt in g p a rtn e r. G re ya n d a f e llo w c o -c o n sp ira to r, ar m e d w ith handguns , ent er ed the truck and w ai t ed w hi l e the vehi cl e w as s t opped t o pi ck up a depos i t . O nce D ean a nd hi s par t nerr etur ned, G r eypoi nt ed hi s gun atD ean’ s par t nerand i ns t ruct ed hi m nott o m ove. W hen D ean’ s par t nerat t empt ed t o foi l t he r obbery , G r eys hot hi m t w i ce a tpoi nt - bl ank r ange. T he part nerl eape d fr om the arm or ed ca rand ca l l ed for h e lp . H is lif

e w a s s a v e d o n ly b yh is b u lle t- p ro o f v e s t.U nderU . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 7) ( E ) , a four - l evel enhanc ementi s appl i ed fora l os s of 1 m or e than $800, 000 butl es s t han $1, 500, 000. A ppl y i ng t he four - l evel enhanc ementpr ovi ded i n U . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 7) ( E ) , t he C our tarr i ved ata t ot al offe ns e l evel of 25, w hi ch, w hen coupl ed w i t h G r ey ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yof I , y i el ded an a dvi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of 57- 71 m ont hs on t he cons pi r acy count , t o be fol l ow ed bya mandat or ycons ecut i ve s ent ence of 120 m ont hs on t he § 924( c) convi ct i on. A s not ed, t he courts ent ence d G r eyt o 191 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent ; 71 m ont hs on C ount1 fol l ow ed bya mandat or ycons ecut i ve 120- m ont h s ent ence on C ount4. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 2 juri sd ict ion o v er G rey ’s ap p ea l un d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s (c o n tin u e d ...) 3 G r eyand hi s co- cons pi r at or s , now i n s ol e pos s es s i on of the arm or ed ca r , dr ove appr oxi m at el y200 fee t . T heyt hen s t opped, exi t ed the arm or ed ca r , and empt i ed s acks of m oney( appr oxi m at el y$90, 000) i nt o T i l l m an’ s get aw ayvehi cl e. Pol i ce a ppr ehende d G r eyand hi s co- cons pi r at or s aft era hi gh s peed c has e. G re yw a s c h a rg e d in th re e c o u n ts o f a f o u r-c o u n t in d ictm e n t an d p lea d e d g u iltyto tw o c h a rg e s : c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it H o b b s A c t r o b b e ry in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1951( a) and us e of a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of a c r i m e of vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound G r eyr es pons i bl e forover$1 m i l l i on i n l os s , s t at i ng t hat“fora per i od of t i m e [the def endant s ] w er e i n s ol e contr ol of an arm or ed ca rw i t h $ 1. 1 m i l l i on. ” C ons equent l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a f our - l evel s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e me n tu n d e rUni t e d St a t e s Se n t e n c i n g Gui d e l i n e § 2 B3. 1 ( b ) ( 7 ) ( E) (2 0 0 8 ). G re yc h a llen g e s h is s e n ten c e o n tw o g ro u n d s, a rg u in g th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in

1 i t s l os s cal cul at i on and fa i l ed t o gi ve ade quat e cons i der at i on t o t he 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fact ors. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 d e te rm in a tio n o f

lo s s f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r ennan , 326 F. 3d 176, 194 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e re v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c e f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 (2 0 0 5 ). G r eyfai l s t o not e that“i nt ended l os s ” al s o “i ncl udes i nt ended pe cuni aryharm t hat 3 w oul d have be en i m pos s i bl e orunl i kel yt o occur. . . . ” See U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 . cm t. n .3 (A )( ii) (I I) . 4 II. G r eycont ends t he courterr ed bycal cul at i ng l os s t o be $1. 165 m i l l i on beca us e the cons pi r at or s di d noti nt end t o s t eal m or e than $150, 000 and i n fac tonl y“s t ol e” a p p ro x im a tely$ 9 0 ,0 0 0 . G re ya rg u e s th a t lo ss , as o u tli n e d in U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 c m t. n. 3( A ) ( i i ) , m us tbe ca l cul at ed onl yon t he pec uni aryharm t hatw as i nt ended t o r es ul tfr om t he off ens e. T he D i s t r i ctC our ther e corr ect l ycal cul at ed l os s i n acc or dance w i t h § 3 2 B 3 .1 , w h ich a d d re ss e s ro b b e ry , n o t § 2 B 1 .1 c m t. n.3 , w h ich a d d re ss e s th e f t, embezzl ement , r ece i ptof s t ol en pr oper t y , pr oper t ydes t ruct i on and off ens es i nvol vi ng f ra u d o r d e c e it. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. A l l en , 516 F. 3d 364, 378- 379 ( 6t h C i r . 2008) ( fi ndi ng t he C om m i s s i on’ s amendm entt o § 2B 1. 1, i ns t ruct i ng cour t s t o us e “the gr eat er o f a c tu a l lo s s o r i n te n d e d lo s s ,” d id n o t a f f e c t th e d e f

in itio n o f lo s s u n d e r § 2 B 3 .1 ). Sect i on 2B 3. 1 cmt . n. 3 defi nes “l os s ” forpurpos es of r obberyas “the val ue of the p ro p e rtytak e n , d a m a g e d o r d e stro y e d .” It is u n d isp u ted th a t th e to tal a m o u n t o f c a sh in t he arm or ed ca rw as $1. 165 m i l l i on. W hen G r eyand hi s co- cons pi r at or s comm andee r ed th e a rm o re d c a r, t h e yto o k d o m in io n a n d c o n tr o l o v e r t h e to ta l a m o u n t o f $ 1 .1 6 5 m illio n . B ye x e rc isin g su c h d o m in io n a n d c o n tro l, G re ya n d h is c o -c o n sp ira to rs h a d “ tak e n ” a llR el y i ng on U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol l ado , 975 F. 2d 985 ( 3d C i r . 1992) , G r eyal s o ar gues he 4 sh o u ld n o t be h eld re sp o n sible fo r th e a m o u n t of m o n eystolen b yh is co -co n sp ir ators beca us e he onl yagr eed t o s t eal betw een $100, 000 and $150, 000. H ow ever , i n C ol l ado w e addr es s ed an i s s ue of a ccompl i ce a t t r i but i on i n w hi ch the def endanti n a cons pi r acy had notper for m ed the cr i m i nal act s char ged. T hatar gum enti s i nappl i cabl e her e. G r ey act ed w i t h hi s co- cons pi r at or s i n s t eal i ng t he arm or ed ca rand the ca s h i ns i de. T he D istric t C o u rt d id n o t re lyu p o n th e a c tio n s o f o th e rs, e x c lu siv e o f

G re y ’s o w n a c tio n s, to cal cul at e G r ey ’ s bas e off ens e l evel . T hus , beca us e G r eyact i vel ypar t i ci pat ed i n t he ro b b e ry, C ol l ado ’s a c c o m p lic e a ttr ib u tio n a rg u m e n t d o e s n o t a p p ly. 5 t he moneyi n t he arm or ed ca ras t hatt erm i s s etfor t h under§ 2B 3. 1 cmt . n. 3. G r eyand h is c o -c o n s p ir a to rs m o v e d th e c a s h a t w ill w h e n th e yd ro v e a w a yin th e a rm o re d c a r. T heyhad s ei zed the ent i r e amount . A ccor di ngl y , t he l os s cal cul at i on m us ti ncl ude the ent i r e amount . T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l os s cal cul at i on corr ect l yr efl ect s t he amount w hi ch G r eyhad “t aken” as $1. 165 m i l l i on. 4 I n U ni t ed Stat es v. A l l en , t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he Si xt h C i r cui thel d “a r obber

‘ t akes ’ an obj ect , forpurpos es of § 2B 3. 1, w hen the r obberexer ci s es dom i ni on and contr ol overt hatobj ect , s uch thatt he r obberhas compl et ed the ac t s nece s s aryt o s ei ze t hatobj ect . ” 516 F. 3d at380. I n A l l en , al l co- cons pi r at or s pl eade d gui l t yt o s t eal i ng r ar e, e x p e n s iv e b o o k s f

ro m a u n iv e rs ity lib ra ry. I d. a t 3 6 6 . In th e c o u rse o f th e th e f t, defe nd ants real i zed theyw ere i l l -pr epared to r em ov e such a l arge nu m ber of b oo ks, so th e yd e c id e d to le a v e th o s e th e yc o u ld n o t c a rr y . I d. at369. T he def

endant s w er e ca ught a tte m p tin g to e s c a p e v ia a s ta ir w e ll b ya lib ra ri a n . I d. Fr i ght ened a tbei ng di s cover ed, th e yd ro p p e d s e v e ra l o f th e s to le n b o o k s b e f

o re f le e in g th e lib ra ry. I

d. T h e d istri ct co u rtT he P arkerc o u rt in te rp re te d th e s a m e la n g u a g e c o n ta in e d in w h a t is n o w § 2 B 3 .1 5 cmt . n. 3 pr i ort o t he C om m i s s i on’ s amendm ent s t o § 2B 1. 1. A tt he t i m e P arkerw as deci ded, § 2B 1. 1 defi ned “l os s ” as “the val ue of the pr oper t yt aken, damaged or d e s tr o y e d .” U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 . c m t. n .2 (1 9 9 0 ). 6 decl i ned t o i ncl ude i n t he l os s cal cul at i on t he val ue of the books t he def endant s coul d not c a rr yo r d ro p p e d . T he governm entappea l ed the s ent ence and the Si xt h C i r cui tconcl uded the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s l os s cal cul at i on s houl d have i ncl uded the books l eftbehi nd and dr opped byt he d e f e n d a n ts . I

d. at381. T he courtfound thatt he def endant s had t aken a l l t he books b e c a u s e “ t h e ymo v e d t h e m a twi l l ; t h e yc o u l d h a v e d a ma g e d t h e m, d e s t r o y e d t h e m, hi dden them, pl ay ed w i t h t hem or— as t heydi d— pr epar ed them t o be ca r r i ed aw ay . ” I d. Si m i l ar l y , t he Second Ci r cui thas hel d l os s cal cul at i on i ncl udes pr oper t yover w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t e x e rc is e d o n ly te m p o ra ry d o m in io n a n d c o n tr o l. U ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 903 F. 2d 91, 105 ( 2d C i r . 1990) . T he def endant s i n P arkercons pi r ed t o r ob a 5 d e p o s it v e h ic le b e lo n g in g to a c h e c k c a s h in g f ir m . I d. at95–96. A ft ers t eal i ng t he vehi cl e, t he def

endant s t r ans ferr ed a s ubs t ant i al por t i on, butnotal l , of the moneyi nt o a g e ta w a yc a r a n d f

le d . I d. at 96 . T h e c o u rtfo u n d the d ef en d an ts r esp o n sible fo r th e e n ti re amount of m oneyi n t he s t ol en depos i tvehi cl e bec aus e theyhad exe r ci s ed domi ni on and c o n tr o l o v e r t h e e n tir e lo t o f c a s h . I d. at105. A l t hough a por t i on of the moneyw as not t r ans ferr ed i nt o t he get aw aycart hat“[di d] notm ean thatt heyhad nott aken i t . ” I d.7

A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ycal cul at ed l os s undert he Sent enci ng G uidel i nes. III . G re ya lso a rg u e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se it fa iled to adequa t el ycons i dert he 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s i n s ent enci ng hi m att he hi gh end of th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e ra n g e . W e eva l uat e a s ent ence byr evi ew i ng t he court ’ s r ecor d cons i der i ng t he r el evant f a c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). U

ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 454 F. 3d 187, 194 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he s ent enci ng j udge nee d notexpl i ci t l ycomm enton everyfac t ori f “the r ecor d m akes cl ear t he courtt ook t he fa ct or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ho we , 543 F. 3d 128, 137 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tadequa t el ycons i der ed and w ei gh ed the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt ook car e t o cons i derand expl ai n i t s s ent ence t o G r ey . G r ey ar gued he w as l es s cul pabl e than hi s co- defe ndant s , t hathe had no i nt entt o s hoott he s ecur i t yguar d, and thatt he poorcondi t i ons att he j ai l i n w hi ch G r eyw as hel d befor e tr i al w arr ant ed a r educt i on i n s ent ence . D es pi t e G r ey ’ s m i t i gat i ng ar gum ent s , t he D i s t r i ctA s t he G overnm entpr oper l ypoi nt ed out , G r eyw as “the mostcul pabl e of a l l t he 6 defe ndant s i nvol ved i n t hi s cas e, ” as he “a ctual l ys hotan i nnocentm an” a ft erpoi nt i ng a load ed g u n at him . T h e C o u rtstr esse d the s eriou sn ess o f th is co n d u ct, n o ti n g that a m ere f o rt u ity w a s a ll th a t p re v e n te d th is p ro s e c u tio n f ro m b e in g o n e f

o r “ m u rd e r.” 8 C our tr eas onabl yci t ed the s er i ous nes s of the off ens e under18 U . S. C . §§ 3553( a) ( 1) and 6 (2)(A ) an d the n ee d to d eter G reyan d o thers u n d er § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2)(B ). I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .