2009 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
4-22-2009 

# U SA v . Ge r ald B irnie P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-1944

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 no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 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 Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t 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 . Ge r ald B ir nie " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1503. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1503The Honorable Richa rd G. Stearns, District Judgefor the United States District Court for * Massac husetts, sitt ing by

designation. 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. 08- 1944
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. GER ALD BI RN I E, 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 istri ct C o u rtN o . 2 -07 -cr-00 5 8 2 -1 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o
Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 14, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges a n d S T E A R N S , D is t r i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 22, 2009)
OP I NI ON
S T E A R N S , D is tr i ct

Judge
. G er al d B i r ni e appe al s fr om hi s convi ct i on and sent ence for an at t empt ed t heftfr omWe have jurisdiction to hear the appe al under

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 1 The Court also imposed threeyear s of supervise d rele ase, restitution i n the amount of 2 $3,897, and a spe cial asse ssment of $100. 2 a n A u to m a te d T e lle r M a c h in e (A T M ), i n v io la tio n o f th e b a n k la rc e n ys ta tu te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 2113( d)
. B i r ni e w as convi ct ed af t era tr i al befor e a j ur y o n N o v em b er 27, 2007. H e w as 1
s ent ence d byt he D i s t r i ctC our tt o t w enty - one mont hs of i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s t i m el yappea l 2 fol l ow ed. B i r ni e as s i gns t hr ee e r r or s . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence
. N ext , he ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n admi t t i ng i nt o evi dence a pl ea agr eement i n a pr evi ous cas e i n w hi ch B i r ni e admi t t ed t o s t eal i ng fr om t he s ame A T M
. Fi nal l y , B i r ni e ar gues t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he ju ry ’s f in d in g o f g u ilt
. O n M ar ch 9, 2007, an anonym ous cal l er al er t ed pol i ce t o a bur gl aryi n pr ogr es s atan A T M atW achovi a B ank i n t he 6400 bl ock of Fr ank fo rd A v en u e i n Phi l adel phi a. A tt he
s uppr es s i on hear i ng, O ffi cerC hr i s t opherL ew i s , an ei ght een- y earpol i ce ve t er an, t es t i fi ed th a t at 6 :2 0 a .m ., h e re c e iv e d a “ f las h ” ra d io c a ll th a t a “ w h ite m a le, d a rk , h o o d e d jac k e t, [w as ] br eaki ng i nt o t he A T M m achi ne. ” O ffi cer L ew i s r es ponded fr om a l ocat i on t w o bl ocks
aw ay . H e arr i ved 3 0 sec o n d s aft err ece i vi ng t he r epor t , dr i vi ng on t he w r ong s i de of the
s t r eet . T he sun w as r i s i ng and vi s i bi l i t yw as good. T her e w as l i t t l e tr aff i c on the s t r eet , and th e o n lyp e d e stria n s in th e a re a w e re c lu ste re d a ro u n d a n e a r b y b u s s to p . O f f ice r L e w is t es t i fi ed thathe s aw a w hi t e mal e ( B i r ni e) i n fr ontof t he bank w ho fi tt he des cr i pt i on
c o n tain e d in th e f

las h re p o rt. O f f ice r L e w is te stif

ied th a t as h is p a tro l ca r c a m e to a sto p , B irn ie s tar e d f ix e d lyin3

hi s di r ect i on. O ffi cer L ew i s exi t ed hi s crui s er , put hi s hand on hi s g u n , an d ap p roac hed B i r ni e, w ho appea r ed t o be “a l i t t l e nervous . ” O ffi cerL ew i s t ook B i r ni e by t he arm and
w al ked hi m t ow ar ds t he pol i ce c ar . A s he di d s o, he conduc t ed a qui ck pat
- dow n s ear ch,
re m o v in g a s c re w d ri v e r a n d a p a iro f p lie rs f ro m B ir n ie ’s ja c k e t. O ffi cerL ew i s as ked B i r ni e t o s i ti n t he back of hi s pol i ce car . B i r ni e compl i ed. A ft er ot heroffi cer s ar r i ved at t he s cene , O ffi cer L ew i s i ns pect ed t he A T M
. H e obs er ved thatt he A T M ’ s pl as t i c ca s i ng w as cr acke d and pul l ed out , and t hat s cr at ch m ar ks w er e vi s i bl e ar ound th e m e ta l c a s h e

je c tio n s lo t. A tt r i al , t he governm enti nt r oduced a b an k s ur vei l l ance vi deo of Bi r ni e l oi t er i ng out s i de the bank, t he j acke tt hathe had be en w ear i n g w h en he w as fi r s ts een byO ffi cer D avi s , t he s cr ew dr i verand pl i er s s ei zed f r om h is ja cket , t he pr i orpl ea a gr eement , and evi dence of th e d am ag e t o t he A T M
. B i r ni e ca l l ed hi s gr andmot heras a w i t nes s . She t es t i fi ed thats he had gi ven B i r ni e perm i s s i on t o us e her A T M car d t hat m or ni ng t o w i t hdr aw
ca sh to p ayfo r l u n ch an d ciga re tte s . A t the clos e o f th e e v iden ce , B irn ie m o v ed fo r a j udgm entof acqui t t al , ar gui ng t hat t he governm ent had pr es ent ed no di r ectevi dence t hathe had t amper ed w i t h t he A T M
. T he C our tdeni ed the m ot i on, rul i ng t hatt he governm enthad p re se n ted su f

f icie n t circ u m sta n tial e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a f in d in g o f g u ilt
. 1. T he M oti on t o S up press Pr i or t o t r i al , B i r ni e s ought t o s uppr es s t he i ncr i m i nat i ng t ool s t aken f r om hi s per s on, argu ing thatt her e w as no document aryevi dence t o corr obor at e O ffi cerL ew i s ’ s t es t i m ony t hatt he fl as h r epor t had cont ai ned a des cr i pt i on of a s us pect , and w i t hout t hatdes cr i pt i on t heT h e p olice logstated only that therewas a

“burg lary

in progress.”Offic er L ewis’s ha nd- 3 written report did not mention a phy sical desc ription. 4 r emai ni ng fac t s di d nots uppor ta fi ndi ng of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed 3 B i r ni e’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , fi ndi ng t hat t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ance s justi fied an in v e s tig a tiv e s to p a n d p a t- d o w n s e a rc h o f h is p e rs o n . W e r evi ew t he fa ct s under l y i ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr or , and exerci se p l enary revi ew ov er the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s l egal conclusi on s. U ni t ed St at es v. R am os , 443 F. 3d 304, 307 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. T he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s m aybe af fi r m ed
o n a n yg ro u n d s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd
. U ni t ed St at es v. A gnew , 4 0 7 F
. 3 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). “The Fourth A m endment does notr equi r e a pol i ceman w ho l acks t he pre ci s e l evel of i nfor m at i on nece s s ar yforpr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tt o s i m pl y s hrug hi s s houl der s and al l ow
a cr i m e t o occurora cr i m i nal t o es cape . . . . A br i ef s t op of a s us pi ci ous i ndi vi dual , i n or der to d et er m i ne hi s i dent i t y or t o m ai nt ai n t he s t atus quo m om ent ar i l y w hi l e obt ai ni ng m o re in f o rm a tio n , m a yb e m o s t r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e f a c ts k n o w n to th e o f

f ic e r a t th e tim e .” A d a ms v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 0 7 U .S . 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 -1 4 6 (1 9 7 2 ). See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. G oodr i ch , 450 F. 3d 552, 558- 559 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , ci t i ng T e rr y v . O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 , 3 0 (1 9 6 8 ). R e a so n a b le
s u s p ic io n is a le s s e x a c tin g s ta n d a rd th a n p ro b a b le c a u s e . A la b a m a v . W h ite , 496 U
. S. 325, 330 ( 1990)
. “B as ed upon [the] w h o le pi ctur e the det ai ni ng offi cer s m us thave a par t i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve b asis fors us pect i ng t he part i cul arper s on s t opped of c r i m i nal act i vi t y . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C or t ez , 4 4 9 U
. S
. 4 1 1 , 4 1 7 -41 8 (19 8 1 ).5

Fact s an d c i r c u ms t a n c e s a r e t o b e j u d g e d i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y i n d e t e r mi n i n g t he
r eas onabl enes s of pol i ce c onduct
. I n t hi s r egar d, conductt hatm i ghtbe per cei ved as i nnocent bya cas ual onl ooker m ay i n t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ance s appea r s us pi ci ous t o a tr ai ned
an d ex p erien ce d p o li ce o ff icer. U nit ed S t ates v. A rvi

zu , 53 4 U
. S
. 26 6, 27 3 (200 2). “T he tes t i s one of r eas on ab lene ss gi ven t he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s , w hi ch ca n i ncl ude [a defe ndant ’ s ] l ocat i on, a hi s t or yof cr i m e i n t he ar ea, [a de fenda nt ’ s ] ner vous behavi orand
evas i veness , and [a n offi cer ’ s ] comm on s ens e j udgm ent s and i nfer ence s abouthum an behavi or . ” J

o h n so n v . C a m

p b e ll , 3 3 2 F .3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I f t her e i s a r eas onabl e bas i s forbel i evi ng t hata s us pectpos es a danger t o pol i ce or to o th e rs , h e m a y b e “ f

ri s k e d ” (p a tte d d o w n ) f o r p o s s ib le w e a p o n s . Ter r y, 392 U
. S. at27. “The purpos e of thi s l i m i t ed [ T erry ] s ear ch i s nott o di s coverevi dence of cr i m e, but t o al l ow t he offi cer t o pur s ue hi s i nves t i gat i on w i t hout fea r of vi ol ence . . . . ” A da ms , 407 U
. S. at146. T o thatend , t he fri sk m ayextend b eneath a person ’s o uterw ear i f t he o ffi cer feel s a
s u s p ic io u s o b

je c t th a t c o u ld b e a w e a p o n . Ter r y, 3 9 2 U .S . a t 2 2 -2 5
. C o n tr aryto B irn ie’s asse rt ion , th e D is tr ictC o u rtd id n o t r ejec t O ff icer L ew is’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he des cr i pt i on of a s us pect i n t he fl as h r epor t . R ather , t he C our ts t at ed th a t t her e’ s s om e ambi gui t yi n w hethert her e ac tual l yw as an i dent i fi cat i on of s om eone a s a w hi t e mal e w ear i ng a dark j acke tw i t h a hood.
. . . I bel i eve that the c ir cu m stan ce s w h ere itw as, t h at i t w as a h igh c ri m e a re a , th at i t w as - - a l t h o u g h y o u ’ r e e n t i t l e d t o wa l k t h e s t r e e t s a t6 i n t h e mo r n i n g , a n d s o me peo ple do so i nn ocen t l y , t hat cer t ai nlygo es t o the t otal i t y of the ci rcum st ances. T he expe r i ence d offi cers aw hi m comi ng, saw hi m t ake s peci al not e of the pol i ce c ar , and w as conce rne d forhi s s afe t y . H e had a r i ghtt o s t op hi m and as k hi m w hathe w as doi ng. T he guy s ai d he’ s j us tw al ki ng. H e di dn’ ts ayhe6

w as goi ng t o getm oneyon hi s gr andmot her ’ s A T M car d, al t hough he di d have i twi t h h i m. A pp. 142. W e di s cern no err ori n t he rul i ng. E v en w it h o u t a phy s i cal des cr i pt i on, t he
c o mb i n a t i o n o f

Of f i c e r Le wi s ’ s e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e , Bi r n i e ’ s p r o x i mi t y t o a r e p o r t e d c r i me in p ro g re ss , the a b se n c e o f o th e r p e d e stria n s in th e a r e a , B ir n ie ’s s u sp icio u s b e h a v io r in st ari ng atO ffi cer Le w i s, and his vis i ble apprehensi on atO ffi cer Le w i s’ s approach , gav e ri se t o a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hat B i r ni e w as i nvol ved i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y . M or eover , gi ven the natur e of the r epor t ed cr i m e, i tw as r eas onabl e forO ffi cerL ew i s t o bel i eve thatB i r ni e mi ght h a v e a w e a p o n i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n ( o rb u r g l a r ’ s t o o l s t h a t c o u l d b e w i e l d e d a s w e a p o n s )
. We
c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in ru lin g th a t O f f ice r L e w is h a d re a so n a b le g ro u n d s to c o n d u c t a n in v e s tig a tiv e s to p a n d a p a t- f ri s k o f B ir n ie
. 2 . E v id e n c e o f

P rio r A c ts Nex t , Bi r n i e a r g u e s t h a t t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n per m i t t i ng t he g o v e r n ment t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f Bi r n i e ’ s c o n v i c t i o n f

o rb u r g l a r i z i n g t h e s a me ATM
s e v e n y e a r s e a r l i e r . I n a p l e a a g r e e me n t i n t h a tc a s e , Bi r n i e a d mi t t e d t o p r y i n g o p e n t h e ATM i n J anuaryof 2000, and s t eal i ng $5, 180 i n cash
. H e al s o admi t t ed t o at t empt i ng a s econd t heftfr om t he s ame A T M on Feb rua ry12, 2000. I n addi t i on t o t hi s convi ct i on, t he gover nm ents oughtt o i nt r oduce e vi dence of four t een other insta nces i n w hi ch B i r ni e had b e e n c o n v icte d o f

lar c e n y . T h e D istric t C o u rt e x c lu d e d th e se c o n v ic ti o n s a s o v e rly p re ju d icia l. A s t hi s C our t has obs er ved numer ous t i m es , “bec aus e the tr i al j udge i s pr es enti n t he
c o u rtro om as t he chal l eng ed evi den ce i s off ered, and i s t herefore ‘i n the best po si t i o n to7

asse ss the ex tent o f th e p rejud ice c au sed a p arty , ’ t h e tri al j u d g e m u s t ‘b e g iv e n a v ery
s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on i n ‘ bal anci ng’ pr obat i ve val ue on the one hand a nd ‘ unfai rpr ej udi ce’
o n th e o th e r.’ F o r th is re a so n , w e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s b a lan c in g a n a ly sis p u r s u a n t to Feder a l Rul e 4 0 3 f

o ra n a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n , a n d a c c o r d g r e a td e f e r e n c e t o t h e Di s t r i ct C our t ’ s ul t i m at e dec i s i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. U

ni ver s alR ehab. Svcs
. (

P A) , I nc. , 205 F. 3d 657, 6 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A t r i al cour tm us tw ei gh tw o i s s ues w hen dec i di ng w hethert o admi ta pr i or convi ct i on: “fi r s t , w hether t he convi ct i on i s l ogi cal l yr el evantunderR ul es 404( b) and 402 t o anyi s s ue othert han the def endant ’ s pr opens i t yt o com m it the cr i m e [a l l eged] ; [and]
s econd, i f re l evant , w hether under R ul e 403 the proba t i ve val ue of the evi dence out w ei ghs i t s pr ej udi ci al eff

ect . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sam

ps on , 9 8 0 F
. 2 d 8 8 3 , 8 8 6 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ). Fed. R
. E vi d. 404( b) pr ovi des t hat [e] vi dence of ot hercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the c h a r a c t e ro f

a p e r s o n i n o r d e rt o s h o w a c t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h
. I tm a y, how ever , be admi s s i bl e forot her p u rpo ses , s uch as pr oof of mot i ve, oppor tuni t y , i nt ent , pr eparati on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i t y , orabs ence of m is ta k e o r a c c id e n t . . . . T he Supr eme C our thas i dent i fi ed the fol l ow i ng fourgui del i nes for d et er m i ni ng t he admi s s i bi l i t yof pr i orbad act evi dence : “( 1) t he evi dence m us t have a pr operpurpos e under R ul e 404( b) ; ( 2) i tm us t be r el evant under R ul e 402; ( 3) i t s pr obat i ve val ue m us tout w ei gh i t s pr ej udi ci al eff

ectunderR ul e 403; and ( 4) t he courtm us tchar ge t he j ur y t o cons i dert he evi dence onl yfort he l i m i t ed purpos e forw hi ch i ti s admi t t ed. ” Sam ps on , 980 F. 2d at886 ( ci t i ng H uddl es t on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 4 8 5 U
. S
. 6 8 1 , 6 9 1 -69 2 (19 8 8 )).8

O ver B i r ni e’ s obj ect i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tadmi t t ed the pr i orbank l ar cenyconvi ct i on, f in d in g th a t “[ i]t’s to sh o w th e p lan , th e in ten t, k n o w led g e , a b se n c e o f m ista k e o r a c c id e n t,
a n d t h a th e h a d t he knowl e d g e o f h o w t o d o i t , t h e k n o wl e d g e t h a tt h e r e was a n ATM
m achi ne at t he bank. ” T he C our t gave t he j ur y a t i m el y and em phat i c l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on. W e fi nd no abus e of the C our t ’ s di s cr et i on. I n l i ghtof t he fa ctt hatB i r ni e’ s pr i orconvi ct i on i nvol ved the s ame A T M , t he evi dence w as pr obat i ve of hi s fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he pr emi s es , and h i s k n o w l e d g e o f

h o w t o c a r r y o u tt h e r o b b e r y. 3. Suffi ci encyof t he Evi dence Fi nal l y , B ir n ie a rgu es that t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on
w h ere there w as n o d ir ec t evid en ce that h e tam p ere d w ith the A T M
. In a sses sing the ju ry ’s
v e rd ict, “ o u r sc o p e o f

re v iew is lim ited to e x a m in in g w h e th e r th e re is s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e to
s uppor t t he ver di ct , dr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof t he ver di ctw i nner . ” Le v. U ni v. of P enn. , 3 2 1 F .3 d 4 0 3 , 4 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). S e e a l s o Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . Br o wn , 3 F. 3d 673, 680- 681 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( w e cons i dert he “e vi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he gover nm ent and af

fi r m t he j udgm enti f t her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch anyr at i onal tr ier of fa ct co u ld f

ind g u il t bey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t. ”). T he evi dence att r i al ampl ys upp o rt ed the j ur y ’ s ver di ct . I ts how ed thatB i r ni e w as i n t h e n e a r v i c i n i t y o f t h e b a n k i mme d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e ATM was v a n d a l i z e d , t hat he w as
ca rry ing co n ce aled b u rglar’s too ls, that h e w as v isi b lyap p reh en sive in O ff icer L ew is’ s prese n ce , thathe had e ar l i err obbed the s ame bank, and thathe had done s o i n a manner
cons i s t entw i t h t he mar ki ngs obs er ved byO ffi cerL ew i s on the A T M
. W hi l e thi s m aybe9

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , i ti s evi dence nonethel es s : i ti s bynow w el l
- s et t l ed thata convi ct i on
m a y re s t o n c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a lo n e . U n itedS ta tes v . B o

y le , 4 0 2 F
. 2 d 7 5 7 , 7 5 8 (3d C ir
. 1 9 6 8 ). For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m B i r ni e’ s convi ct i on.