2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-14-2010 

# U S A v . K el lie J ohnson
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 ock e t N o . 10-2123

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Ke l l ie J o hn s on " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 952. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/9521 NOT PRECEDENT IAL UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIRC UI T
N o. 10- 2123
UN IT ED ST AT ES OF AME RICA

v. KELLIE JOHNSON

A ppe llant
On Appeal from

the United State s District Court fo r the E as te rnD istri ct

of P en nsy lvania D istri ct Co urt N o. 2:0 9- CR -0 0698 -0 01 District Judge: The H onorable C. D arnell Jones, II
Subm itted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A .R. 34.1(a)

Jul y 14, 201 0 Befo re: SLOVITER, BARRY, an d S MITH, Circuit Judges

(F ile d: July

14, 201 0)
OPINION
SMI TH , Circuit Judge. K el lie Joh nsonw as e m

plo y ed by the D ep ar

tm en t of H om el an d S ec ur it y as a Tr an s p o rt at i o n Se cu ri t y Of fi ce r a tt h e P h i l ad el p h i a I n t er n at i o n al Ai rp o rt . On OctoberT he D istri ct Co urt ha d j ur isd ic tio n un de r 18 U
. S. C. § 32 31. Appe llate 1 juri sd ic ti on ex is ts pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 3 74 2( a) an d 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91
. W e re view cla im s of procedural and substant ive unreasonableness for an 2 ab us e o f di sc ret io n. United States v. T omko , 562 F. 3d 55 8, 567 (3d Cir. 2009 ) (e n banc ). A n a

buse of dis cr et ione xis ts “ if

adis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it s de ci sio n ona clear ly err oneous fac tual conclusio n or an err oneous legal conclusion .” Id

. a t 56 7- 68
. 2 22, 200 9, dur ing a n e xpl osi ve tr ac e de te ct ionsc reeni ng conduc te d a t a se curi ty checkpoint, John son to ok a $100 bill from a pas s enger’ s purse. T he passenger discovered the m issin g m oney and reported it. John son adm itted that she had taken the m one y , a nd s he w as c harg ed w iththe m isd em eanor

of thef t by agov er nm en t
em ploy ee, in viol ation of 18 U. S. C. § 654
. Af ter pleading guil ty

in the United States D i s t r i c t C o u rtf o r t h e E a s t e rn D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s yl v a n i a , J o h n s o n w a s s e n t e n c e dt o “6
m onth s (term

of im prisonm ent to be served in a halfw ay house).” John son appealed. Instead of ser ving her sentence in a h alfw ay house, 1 John son w as inc ar ce rate d a t the P hil ad el phi a Fe de ra l D et en tio n C en t er . S he c ont en ds that her sent ence is procedurally and subs tantively

unreasonable. In her view , ther e 2
ar e thr ee pr oc ed

ur al e rr or s. F ir st, she c ont en ds tha t the D istri ct Co urt e rr ed

be ca use the te rm ino log y

use d inim

posi ng the se nte nc e pr ev en ts the se nte nc e of asix m onth term in a halfway hous e from being fulfilled. Sec ond, John son asserts that the Court im pr o p e r l y ap p l i e d t h e s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n U S S G § 2 B 1
. 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) f or

“ theft from

the person of an other,” thereby erroneously increasing her o ffense le vel3

by tw o po int s. H er

thi rd a sse rt ionof

e rr or is tha t the Co urt’ s f

ac tua l f ind ing that sh e

“ co m pr om is[ ed ] the sa fe ty

of the na tio n’ s tr av el er s” is unsu ppor te d by the r ec or d. W e agre e that the sentence wa s subject to procedural err or. The D istrict Court
ex pr es se d i ts i nte nt t o se nte nc e John son to s ix m onths i m pr iso nm en t, but

f ir st af fo rd ed de fe nse c ouns el a nd J ohns on an o ppor tun ity to spe ak
. A ft er

he ar ing the ir sta te m en ts, the D istri ct

Co urt d ecl ar ed

“ [n ] ow , ba se d up on the r eque st o f y our
co unse l and the a cquie sc en ce of c ouns el fo r the G ove rn m en t, I w ill a llo wthi s pe ri od of im p r i s o n m e n t t o b e s e rv e d i n a h a l f w a y h o u s e , t h a t [ i s ] t o b e d e t e rm ine d a nd
es ta bli she d by

the Bure au of

P ri sons . ” I m

m ed ia te ly a ft er e xpl ai nin g th at

Joh nson had a right to appeal her sentence, the District Court reiterated that the sentence w as to be served in a halfw ay house. D espi t e d ef

en s e co unsel’s r equest that the Court im pose asix m onth pe ri od o f pr oba tion, wit h pl ace m en t i n aha lf w ay hou se a s a
co nd it io n o f t h a t p r o ba ti on , th e Co ur t d eci de d t o “ le av e th e se nt en ce as im po se d.” T he D istri ct

Jud ge dir ec te d hi s c ourtoo m de puty to “ co nduc t an inv es tig at ion to m ak e
sur e tha t the se nte nc e can b e carr ie d ou t a s I ’ ve . . . or de re d it
. ” Co nsi ste nt w iththe C o u rt ’s o r a l d e c r e e , t h e j u d g me n ts t a t e dt h a tt h e d e f e n d a n t w a s s e n t e n c e dt o “6
m onth s (term s of im

prisonm ent to be served in a halfw ay house).” Johnson, however, is currently

serving her sentence in a federa l detention center. T his is th e re sult of a pr oc ed ur al erro r by

the D istri ct

Co urt w hic h “ fa il[ ed ] to ad equa te ly e xpl ai n th e chosen sentence” of 6 m onth s “ to be served i n a h al fw ay house.” See Tom ko , 5624

F. 3d at 567 (citing the failure to adequately expl ai n t h e ch osen sentence as an
ex am ple of a pr oc ed

ur al e rr or ). W e w ill va cate the se nte nc e an d r em an d f or
re se nte nc ing so the int en t of the Co urt m ay

be e ff ec tua te d. John son al so c ont en ds tha t the D istri ct Co urt er re d by inc re as ing he r of

fe nse l ev el b y t wo p o i n t s fo r t h e s p ec i fi c o ff en s e ch ar ac t er i s t i c in US SG § 2 B1 .1 (b )( 3 ). We agree that this s pecific off ense charac teristic shou ld not have been applied as the theft did not oc cur w ith in arm s’ r ea chof the vic ti m , a nd the re fo re did not pr es en t the po te nt ia l fo r vi ol en ce or ph y si cal in jury co nt em

pl at ed by t ha t g ui de li ne . See U nited Sta tes v . P iza rro -B errio s , 448 F
. 3d 1 , 11 (1s t C ir
. 200 6) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . L ondo no , 285 F. 3d 3 48, 353 -5 4 (5 th Ci r. 200 2)
. Joh nsondid not obj ec t t o th is a sse ssm en t be fo re t he Dis tric t C ourt, a nd w e w oul d no rm al ly r equir e a show ing of

pla in e rr or before granting relief

. But because we have alre ady determ ined that the sentence
m ust be vac ated and the m atter r em anded for rese ntencing, we note this err or so that it do es no t re cu r du rin g t he sen te nc in g p ro ces s o n re m an d. J o h n s o n ’s t h i rd cl ai m

o f p ro ce d u ra l erro r c o n ce rn s t h e D i s t ri ct Co u rt ’s evaluation of the serious ness of her crim inal offense. Sh e co ntends th at the fac tual fi n d i n g t h at s h e c o m

p ro m i s ed t h e s af

et y o f t h e n at i o n ’s t ra v el er s i s u n s up p o rt ed . We ag ree. Ou r rev ie w of th e rec or d d id no t re ve al an y fact ua l s up po rt f

orth is fin di ng . Be ca use w e h av e d e t e r

m i n e d tha t the D istri ct

Co urt c om

m itt ed pr oc ed ur al e rr or in s en te nc ing Joh nson , w e w ill va cate he r se nte nc e an d r em an d th is m atte r fo rA cc or din gly , w e ne ed not a ddr es s Jo hnso n’ s c la im that he r se nte nc e is 3 also sub stantivelyunreasonable. 5 re se nte nc ing
. 3