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 8-13-2009 

# U SA v . S e an Reed 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 . 08-3917

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_2009

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 2009 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 . S e an Re e d " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 821. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/8211 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- 3917

___________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. S E AN R E E D, A p p e llan t.

___________ 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 ( C r i m i nal N o. 06- 193) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A l an N . B l och

___________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J ul y14, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S , a n d R O T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t13, 2009)

_______________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________________ FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge:1 T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 , an d th is C o u rt h a s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r R e e d ’s a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3742. 2 Sean R eed appeal s fr om the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed bythe U n ited S tate s 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. R e e d , ch a rg e d w ith and convi ct ed of be i ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . §§ 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) an d 9 2 4 (e), all eg es th at th ere w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s f in d in g th a t h e p o ss e ss e d a f ire a rm ; th a t a ju ryin stru c tio n c o n c e rn in g th e in ter sta te comm er ce e l ementof § 922( g) w as uncons t i tut i onal ; and thathi s s ent ence w as s u b s t a n t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w e di s cus s the fa ct s onl yt o the ext ent nece s s aryforthe r es ol ut i on of the i s s ues on appea l . O n a r ai nyA pr i l 2, 2005 i n the Pi t t s bur gh nei ghbor hood of Penn H i l l s , pol i ce of fi cer s R y an W al t er s , J os eph B l aze , and D avi d W i l ki ns on r es ponded t o a r eportof a s us pi ci ous m an i n a bl ue coa tpl ay i ng w i t h a handgun nea r8180 C has ke Str eet , a not or i ous l yhi gh cr i m e ar ea. O ffi cerW al t er s w as fi r s tt o appr oach the man i n t he bl ue coa t , l at eri dent i fi ed as Sean R eed. W al t er s , exi t i ng hi s patr ol carand appr oachi ng R eed, as ked R eed t o puthi s hands up. I ns t ead, R eed turned aw ayfr om W al t er s and bega n t o run. W al t er s gave c has e. R un ning betw een h ou ses and t ow ards the w oo ds, R eed sl i pp ed o n a h eap o f t ras h and fe l l head f

i r s ti nt o a pi l e of l ogs , cutt i ng hi s for ehea d. W al t er s , now t en fe etbehi nd R e e d , o rd e re d R e e d to sta yd o w n b u t, da z e d f ro m h is f a ll, R e e d b e g a n to sta n d u p , h is3

back t o W al t er s . W al t er s not i ced thatR eed’ s r i ghthand w as notvi s i bl e, as i f r eac hi ng i nt o hi s pocket . W al t er s then hea r d a s i ngl e guns hotcome fr om w her e R eed w as s t andi ng on the tr as h heap. B l aze al s o t es t i fi ed t o hear i ng the guns hotfr om hi s pos i t i on farther dow n the s tr eet . D r aw i ng hi s s ervi ce w eapon, W al t er s agai n or der ed R eed t o s t op, but a g a in R e e d f

le d . W alt ers rad ioed to B laze an d W il k inso n to se t up a p erim eter to b lock R ee d ’s e sc a p e o n to n e a rb yL in c o ln R o a d . R e e d d id n o t g e t f a r, an d a f

terre f u sin g to c o m p lyw ith or der s t o geton hi s knees , he w as t ackl ed byW al t er s and W i l ki ns on, handcuf fed, and p lace d u n d er a rrest. B ythis t im e, othe r po li ce o ff icers h ad arrived o n sce n e a n d af ter a pat - dow n w hi ch r evea l ed no w eapons orotherpar aphernal i a, R eed w as t aken t o the pol i ce s t at i on. W i thin fi ve m i nu t es, O ffi cers W al t ers , B l aze, and W i l kinson returned to the tr ash heap w here theyhad heard t he g un shot and fo un d a d rygu n ly i ng on t op of the w ettras h i n pl ai n s i ght . T he ar ea s t i l l s m el l ed l i ke gunpow der , and the gun had one r ound ch am b ere d an d sev en m o re in the m ag az ine. T h ere w as n o rust o n the g u n . T h e o ff icers coul d notfi nd the bul l etcas e i n t he debr i s , and l abor at oryr es ul t s pr oduced no l at ent f in g e rp rin ts f

o r id e n tific a tio n . T h e g u n w a s la ter id e n tifie d a s o n e m a n u f a c tu re d in A us tr i a i n oraft er1990. R eed w as char ged w i th bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) . Fol l ow i ng a tr i al , a j uryr eturned a ve r di ctof gui l ty . T he D i stri ctC ou rt , aft er r eview i ng R eed’s pres entence report , fou nd that R eed’s t otal off ense4

l evel w as 33 bas ed on the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal G ui del i nes . M or eover , the C our tfound thatR eed f

el l underC r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryV I . H ence , R eed w as s ubj ectt o an a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 2 3 5 to 2 9 3 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. A rg u in g th a t h is pr evi ous cr i m i nal r ecor d w as doubl e count ed aga i ns thi m underU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 4, and ques t i oni ng the pol i cybehi nd the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal G ui del i nes , R eed w as perm i t t ed t o fi l e addi t i onal br i efi ng bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , i n addi t i on t o havi ng m ul t i pl e s ent enci ng hear i ngs . H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound the G ui del i nes r ange r eas onabl e and se n ten c e d R e e d to 2 3 5 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, arg u in g th a t “[ i]f th e C o u rt w e re to s ent ence thi s defe ndantbel ow the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange, s ent enci ng di s par i t i es w o u ld re s u lt.” A p p . 3 6 7 . O n appea l , R eed a r gues that : ( 1) the evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe p o sses sion elem en t of

§ 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) suc h that h is co n v ict ion o u g h t t o b e v ac ated ; ( 2 ) j u ry i ns truct i ons on t he i nt er s t at e comm er ce e l ementof § 922( g) ( 1) w er e uncons t i tut i onal ; and ( 3) the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. II. A. W e f irst a d d re ss R e e d ’s c o n v ictio n u n d e r § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). C o n v ictio n u n d e r th is s ect i on r equi r es thatthe governm entpr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt : ( 1) thatthe defe ndanthad pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e puni s habl e bya t erm exce edi ng one y ear , ( 2) thatthe def

endantknow i ngl ypos s es s ed a f i r earm , and ( 3) thatthe fi r earm had5

p a s s e d in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . U n ite d S ta te s v . D o d d , 2 2 5 F .3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). H e re , the p a rties stip u late d b e f o re trial th a t R e e d h a d th e re q u isite f e lo n io u s p a st. R e e d d id n o t m o v e f

o r a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l as to th e p o ss e ss io n e lem e n t at tria l, s o w e r evi ew the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence forpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. M ornan, 413 F. 3d 372, 381 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng that , “[W ] her e, as her e, a def endantdoes not pr es erve the i s s ue of s uffi ci encyof the evi dence bym aki ng a t i m el ym ot i on forj udgm ent of ac qui t t al atthe cl os e of the evi dence , thi s C our tr evi ew s the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence for pl ai n err or. ”). T he p l ai n err or st and ard m and at es that a r eview i ng cou rtm ayrever se the di s tr i ctcourt“onl yi f i tfi nds that( 1) an err orw as comm i t t ed; ( 2) the err orw as pl ai n, thati s , cl earand obvi ous ; and ( 3) the err oraff ect ed the def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sy m e, 276 F. 3d 131, 143 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t at i ons , and i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s a n d a ltera tio n s o m tit e d ). T h e b u rd e n is o n th e d e f e n d a n t to d e m o n stra te th a t “p lain err or ” occ urr ed, and i ti s a “ve r yheavy ” one. U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U . S. 725, 734 ( 1993) . A ddi t i onal l y , “w e ‘ vi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm entand musts us t ai n a j ury ’ s ver di cti f a r eas onabl e j urybel i evi ng the governm ent ’ s evi dence coul d fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe governm entpr oved al l el ement s of the off

ens es . ’ ” M ornan, 413 F. 3d at382 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. R os ar i o, 1 1 8 F .3 d 1 6 0 , 1 6 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 )) . H er e, no err orw as comm i t t ed, l etal one a pl ai n err or . A m ong the evi dence the G overnm entpr es ent ed t o t he j uryw er e: R eed’ s r es embl ance t o the des cr i pt i on pr ovi ded i n the ca l l t o t he pol i ce; O ffi cerW al t er s ’ t es t i m onythathe s aw R eed r eac h i nt o orar ound2 R eed c oncede s he onl yadvanc es thi s ar gum enti n an ef for tt o pr es erve i tforen banc or S u p r e me Co u r tr e v i e w. 6 hi s pant s , fol l ow ed i m m edi at el ybythe s ound of a guns hot ; O ffi cerB l aze ’ s t es t i m onyt hat he hea r d the guns hotfr om an adj ace nts tr eet ; the off i cer s ’ t es t i m onythattheys m el l ed gunpow dernearthe tr as h heap w her e R eed f el l ; the off

i cer s ’ r ecove ryof a dry , rus t - fr ee gun on a w etdayfi ve mi nut es aft erR eed f el l ; and fi nal l yevi dence thatthe gun had one b u llet c h a m b e re d a n d se v e n m o re in th e m a g a z in e . C irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e su c h a s th is has l ong been he l d bythi s C our tt o be s uffi ci entfora convi ct i on. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v . Ig les ias , 5 3 5 F .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ [ T ]h e g o v e rn m e n t m a yd e f e a t a s uffi ci ency - of- the- evi dence chal l enge on c i r cumst ant i al evi dence al one. ”) . T he G overnm entpr es ent ed evi dence pr ovi di ng ampl e s uppor tforan i nfer ence thatR eed w as i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m. B. N ext , R eed a r gues thathi s convi ct i on s houl d be r ever s ed and r emanded fora new tr i al beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j uryi ns truct i ons conce rni ng the i nt er s t at e comm er ce el ementof 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) w er e uncons t i tut i onal i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. L opez, 514 U . S. 549 ( 1995) , J ones v. U ni t ed St at es , 529 U . S. 848 ( 2000) , and U ni t es St at es v. M orr i s on, 529 U . S. 598 ( 2000) , eac h r efi ni ng the perm i s s i bl e us e of Congre s s ’ s pow er u n d er the C o m m erc e C laus e o f th e U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n . W e d isag ree . R ee d ’s 2 ar gum enthas been c ons i s t ent l yr ej ect ed bythi s C our t . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Si ngl et ary , 268 F. 3d 196, 205 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng that“pr oof . . . thatthe gun had7

tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce, ats om e t i m e i n the pas t , [i s ] s uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe interst ate c o m m erc e e lem en t. ”). C. F in a lly, R e e d a rg u e s th a t h is 2 3 5 m o n th s ’ s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § § 2 K 2 .1 and 4B 1. 4 w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. R eed c ont ends thatthe A r m ed C ar eer C r i m i nal G ui del i nes ar e notbas ed on empi r i cal dat a and na t i onal exper i ence and thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tthus abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s ent enci ng R eed w i thi n thatr ange. W e r evi ew R eed’ s cl ai m s of s ent enci ng err or s forabus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. R us s el l , 564 F. 3d 200, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. L l oy d, 469 F .3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 )). T h is is a tw o f o ld p ro c e ss , firs t re q u irin g th is C o u rt to

“ e n su re th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e d n o sig n if ica n t p ro c e d u ra l er ro r in a rriv in g a t it s deci s i on. ” I d. T hen, “i f w e det erm i ne thatthe di s tr i ctcourthas comm i t t ed no s i gni fi cant p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r, w e . . . re v ie w th e s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e .” Id . H er e, R eed c ont ends onl ythatthe s ent ence i m pos ed w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. A s s es s i ng the r eas onabl enes s of a s ent ence r equi r es thi s C our tt o cons i derw hether the s ent enci ng j udge w as fai thful t o 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , w hi ch “t el l s the s ent enci ng ju d g e to c o n sid e r (1 ) o f f e n se a n d o f

f e n d e r c h a ra c ter istics ; (2 ) th e n e e d f o r a se n ten c e to r efl ectthe bas i c ai m s of s ent enci ng . . . ; ( 3) the s ent ence s l egal l yavai l abl e; ( 4) the S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s; (5 ) S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n p o licysta tem e n ts; (6 ) th e n e e d to avoi d unw arr ant ed di s par i t i es ; and ( 7) the nee d forr es t i tut i on. ” R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 551 U . S. 338, 347- 48 ( 2007) . I n K i m br ough v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U . S. 85, 128 S. C t . 5583 R eed c i t es 18 Pa. C ons . St at . § 6105 ( 2000) , the Penns y l vani a s t at e equi val entof §

9 2 2 (g), as ev iden ce that the C o n g ression al st atute p rosc ri b es g rea ter th an n ec essa ry se n ten c e s. T h e G o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t ev e n if th e D istric t C o u rt w e re to a p p ly Penns y l vani a’ s s ent enci ng gui del i nes t o R eed’ s cas e, hi s s ent ence w oul d i n fac tbe l onger th a n th e 2 3 5 m o n th s e n te n c e h e re c e iv e d . 8 ( 2007) , the Supr eme C our thel d t hat“cl os err evi ew m aybe i n or derw hen the s ent enci ng j udge var i es fr om the G ui del i nes bas ed s ol el yon the j udge’ s vi ew thatthe G ui del i nes r ange ‘ fai l s pr oper l yt o r efl ect§ 3553( a) cons i der at i ons ’ even i n a mi ne- run cas e. ” 128 S. C t . at575 ( quot i ng R i t a, 551 U . S. at351) . H ow ever , the Supr eme C our tfound s uch clos e sc ruti n yu n w arran ted w h ere the G u idelines d o n o t exe m p li fythe C o m m issi o n ’s exer ci s e of i t s char act er i s t i c r ol e. R e e d a rg u e s th a t th e C o m m iss io n w a s n o t ex e rc isin g its c h a ra c ter istic r o le in form ul at i ng the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal G ui del i nes . I n part i cul ar , R eed c ont ends thatt he G ui del i nes cannotbe bas ed on nat i onal exper i ence s i nce Penns y l vani a’ s s ent ence foran e q u iv a len t o f

f e n se w o u ld b e lo w e r. R e e d th u s m a in tain s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld 3 h a v e g iv e n h im a d o w n w a rd v a ri a n c e f ro m th o s e G u id e lin e s . T h is lo g ic is te n u o u s a t b e s t. R e e d ’s s in g le e x a m p le w a s b yn o m e a n s s u f f icie n t to re q u ire th e D istric t C o u rt to concl ude thatthe A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal G ui del i nes do notadequa t el yr efl ectal l of the § 3 5 5 3 (a) co n side rati o n s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n side red R ee d ’s arg u m en t t o the c o n tr ary byal l ow i ng hi m m ul t i pl e br i efi ng oppor tuni t i es and s ent enci ng hear i ngs , butfound that the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal G ui del i nes di d i n fac tr efl ect§ 3553( a) fac t or s . T he D i s t r i ct C our tfur therfound thatther e w as nothi ng uni que aboutR eed’ s cas e, and thus concl uded9

thata G ui del i nes r ange s ent ence w as nece s s aryt o m eetthos e fa ct or s . W e fi nd ther e w as n o a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt in im p o s in g a s e n te n c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s . Fi nal l y , R eed a r gues thateven i f the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal G ui del i nes ar e an appr opr i at e s ent enci ng r efe r ence , hi s pr evi ous cr i m i nal r ecor d has been tw i ce c ount ed agai ns thi m : once i n det erm i ni ng hi s offe ns e l evel , and aga i n i n det erm i ni ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e. H ow ever , “onl yw hen the G ui del i nes expl i ci t l ypr ohi bi tdoubl e count i ng w i l l i tbe i m perm i s s i bl e t o r ai s e a de fenda nt ’ s offe ns e l evel underone pr ovi s i on w hen anotheroffe ns e G ui del i ne al r eadyt akes i nt o acc ountthe s ame conduct . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Fi s her , 502 F. 3d 293, 309 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i on, quot at i on m arks and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthat“[t ] he emphas i s on thes e pr i or co n v ict ion s in b o th the ca lculati o n o f th e b ase o ff en se lev el an d a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryaddr es s es di ffe r entpubl i c pol i cyconce rns . ” A pp. 366. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt a s to R e e d ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e .