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 6-25-2010 

# U SA v . W i lli am Ad ams 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 . 09-2404

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . W i ll i am Ad am s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1122. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1122H o n . A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es * C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 09- 2404 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . W I LLI A M A D A M S, 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 M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 1- 08- cr - 00242 ) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . C h ri stop h er C . C o n n er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February11, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , R O T H , and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed : J une 25, 2010)

OP I NI ON2

T A SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udge. W i l l i am A dams appe al s hi s s ent ence of 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entforvi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 876( b) , i nvol vi ng t he mai l i ng of ext or t i onat e thr eat s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 , a n d we wi l l a f f i r m. I. I n 1973, A dams w as convi ct ed foras s aul tw i t h t he i nt entt o r avi s h and s odom y , for w hi ch he s erved the maxi m um t erm of fi ve y ear s . I n 1978, onl ys i x day s aft erhi s r el eas e, A dams att acke d and r aped a s econd vi ct i m . A dams w as agai n convi ct ed, and atthe su b seq u en t sen tenc ing p roc ee d ing , A d am s att em p ted to assa u lth is at torn ey , R o b ert T a rm a n . T he courts ent ence d A dams t o fi ft een t o t hi r t yy ear s i m pr i s onm ent . A l t hough A d a m s w a s e lig ib le f

o r p a ro le a f

ter f if tee n y e a rs, p a ro le o f

f icia ls c o n sis ten tlyd e n ied h im p a r o l e , c i t i n g i n a tl e a s ts o me d e c i s i o n n o t e s h i s p o t e n t i a l d a n g e rt o o t h e r s . I n 2 0 0 8 , t wo m ont hs befor e hi s m andat or yr el eas e dat e, A dams m ai l ed a l ett ert o T arm an. T he l ett er read as fol l ow s:

H i , B ob. I don’ tt hi nk y ou r emem berm e, butI r emem bery ou. I am t he guyw ho punch y ou i n t he fa ce ba ck i n 1979 i n t he court r oom . . . . Y ou di d s uch a good j ob t hatI got15- 30 y ear s . J us tl i ke y ou t ol d m e i n t he co u n tyjai l y o u are n o t pay ing m e, bu t no w it ’s pa yb ac k ti m e a n d y o u are g o in g to g e t p a id . I am get t i ng outof pr i s on on 7- 12- 08 and I w i l l notbe on par ol e or p ro b a tio n o r h a v e a n yk in d o f su p e rv isio n , so th e re w o n ’t b e a n yth in g to s t op m e. Y ou can i m agi ne how bi t t erI am or how m uch ange rI have f or y ou. W hatdo y ou t hi nk I ’ m goi ng t o do?3

T he l et t erw enton t o demand $30, 000, s t at i ng: “Fi r s ty ou w i l l m ai l m e a f i ve thous and dol l art w o hundr ed dol l ar s chec k, and then I w i l l s t ayaw ayfr om y ou and y ourfami l yfor a ho l d o ne y ear. ” A dam s then provided h i s ful l nam e, i nm at e nu m ber, and add res s. A dams al s o m ai l ed l et t er s t o W i l l i am S hr eve, anotherat t orneyw ho had r epr es ent ed hi m , and tw o appar ents t r anger s fr om a l i s tof i ndi vi dual s w ho had v o lun teered in the p ast t o assist i n m ates w ith lega l m att ers. E ac h o f th ese three let ters r efe r ence d A dams’ hi s t or yof s exual vi ol ence , us i ng l anguage s uch as : “Y ou know , i n the pas tI have be en verynas t ym an and done s om e bad thi ngs t o otherpeopl e, ” and “ I am m ovi ng outy ourw aybeca us e the s t at e has cl as s i fi ed me as a vi ol ents exual pr edat ort hat beca us e I s t al k m yvi ct i m . ” Each l et t erthen demanded $650 fr om the r eci pi enti n or der f o r A d a m s to s ta ya w a yf ro m th e re c ip ie n t a n d th e re c ip ie n t’ s f a m ily. A tw o -c o u n t in d ictm e n t w a s f iled o n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 . A d a m s p lea d e d g u iltyto C o u n t O n e o f

th e In d ictm e n t, i n v o lv in g th e lette r to T a rm a n . In a w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t, t he U ni t ed St at es agr eed t o di s m i s s C ountT w o of the I ndi ctm ent , w hi ch w as bas ed on the le tte r t o S h re v e . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng on A pr i l 29, 2009, the D i s t r i ctC our thear d t es t i m ony re g a rd in g A d a m s ’ c o n d u c t d u ri n g h is in c a rc e ra tio n . D r. D a v id S c o tt S a c k s , a p s y c h o l o g i s twh o h a d wo r k e d wi t h Ad a ms f r o m 1 9 9 5 u n t i l 2 0 0 6 , t e s t i f i e d th a tAd a ms w as pl ace d i n a r es t r i ct ed hous i ng uni tbeca us e he pos ed a gr ave r i s k t o otheri nm at es and s t aff i n t he gene r al pr i s on popul at i on. Sacks not ed thatA dams’ pr obl ems w hi l e i n pr i s on4

i ncl uded “a s s aul t i ve beha vi or , [] t hr eat eni ng behavi or , as w el l as hi s s exual l yas s aul t i ve and pr es s ur i ng behavi orof otheri nm at es . ” Sacks al s o s t at ed thatbeca us e A dams us es c a lcu late d v io len c e a s a w a yo f g e tti n g h is n e e d s m e t, th e p ro b a b ili tyo f h im e n g a g in g in futur e as s aul t i ve beha vi orort hr eat s of as s aul t i ve beha vi ori s veryhi gh. Fur t herm or e, Sacks found tr oubl es om e thatA dams fant as i zed a nd m as turbat ed t o i m ages of vi ol ence and degr adat i on of w om en and thathe cont i nued t o actoutand r es i s ttr eatm enteven a ft er t w enty - foury ear s of r ece i vi ng t r eatm ent . A tthe governm ent ’ s r eques t , Sacks us ed an obj ect i ve t ool , t he St at i c- 99, t o pr edi ctthe dange rof futur e r eci di vi s m byA dams. U s i ng t he St at i c- 99, Sacks pr edi ct ed thatA dams pr es ent ed a 33 pe r centchanc e of s exual r eoff endi ng w i t hi n fi ve y ear s , a 52 per centchanc e af t ert en y ear s , and a 57 pe r centchanc e aft erfi ft een y ear s . Sacks pos i t ed thatthe St at i c- 99 actual l yunder s t at ed the dange rthat A dams w oul d r eoff

end bas ed on hi s i ndi vi dual know l edge of A dams. I n r es pons e, A dams’ expert , D r . J ohn M i t chel l H um e, t es t i fi ed thatpr i s on r ecor ds i ndi cat ed that A d a m s h a d a m e n tal d iso rd e r, b u t th a t th is d iso rd e r c o u ld b e tre a ted lea d in g to

“ s u b s ta n tia l im p ro v e m e n t.” T he b ase offen se l evel for A dam s’ viol at i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 8 76 w as 18. A dam s’ gui del i ne i m pr i s onm entr ange w as 33 t o 41 m onths . T he courtdepart ed upw ar d under U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3( a) on t he gr ound t hatA dams’ cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof 3 s ubs t ant i al l yunderr epr es ent ed the s er i ous nes s of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryorthe l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m . T he courtcons i der ed thatA dams had r ece i ved no cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s for5

hi s 1973 i nt entt o r avi s h and s odom yconvi ct i on ora pr i or1969 convi ct i on form al i ci ous m i s chi ef. T he courtal s o found thatA dams’ l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m and patt ern of d ev iat e c o n d u ct “m o st cl o selyrese m b le[d ] de fe n d an ts i n ca tego ri es 5 o r 6.” T h e c o u rt gav e A dam s the b enef

i tof the do ub ti n d epart i ng up w ard t o category5, bri ng i ng A dam s’ g u ideline ra n g e to 5 1 to 6 3 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. In a d d it ion , the D istri ct C o u rt d e p a rte d u p w a rd u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 B 3 .2 b e c a u se A d a m s’ o f f e n se in c lu d e d a th re a t to T arm an’ s fami l ym ember s . T hi s departur e br oughtA dams’ gui del i ne r ange t o 63 t o 78 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. A ft eri m pos i ng t he tw o upw ar d departur es , the courtl as t l ycons i der ed w hetheran u p w ard v arian ce w as a lso w arran ted. In d o ing so , the d istri ct co u rtco n side red the n ature a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

A d a m s ’ i n itia l o f

f e n s e in 1 9 7 8 a s w e ll a s o f th e e x to rt io n a te le tte rs . T h e c o u rt a lso c o n sid e re d th e h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics o f th e d e f e n d a n t, an d th e n e e d to prot ectt he p ub l i c. T he co urtfou nd that, i n li gh tof A dam s’ con t i nu i ng dan gerousn ess a n d lik e lih o o d o f

re o f f e n d in g , a n u p w a rd v a ri a n c e w a s n e c e s s a ry to p ro te c t th e p u b lic . H ow ever , t he courtdi s agr eed w i t h the governm ent ’ s pos i t i on thatA dams s houl d be s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe ndert o 151 t o 188 m ont hs . T he courtcons i der ed as m i t i gat i ng f a c to rs A d a m s’ a g e a n d D r. H u m e ’s te stim o n yth a t A d a m s c o u ld im p ro v e w ith a d e q u a te m ent al heal t h t r eatm ent . T he courtthen s ent ence d A dams t o 120 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. A dams fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l , ar gui ng thathi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e under6

1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). II. B eca us e the s ent enci ng err oral l eged byA dams w as r ai s ed bel ow , w e r evi ew t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s e n te n c e f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

n itedS ta tes v . R u ss e ll , 564 F. 3d 200, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tabus es i t s di s cr et i on i f i tcomm i tt ed a s i gni fi cant p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r o r i f

w e d e te rm in e th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . Id . A dams cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on byi m pos i ng an u n re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . H e b a s e s th is c la im o n th e u p w a rd d e p a rt u re u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 . 3 , t h e u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU . S . S . G . § 2 B 3 . 2 , a n d th e u p w a r d v a r i a n c e . We concl ude thatt he s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. F ir st, the u p w ard d ep arture p u rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 3 w as re aso n ab le. In depart i ng upw ar d, t he courtcons i der ed A dams’ 1973 convi ct i on foras s aul tw i t h t he i nt entt o r avi s h and s odom yand a pr i orconvi ct i on form al i ci ous m i s chi ef, as w el l as A dams’ “patt ern of devi at e conduc t [] and hi s l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m . ” A dams ar gues that b ec au se h is prior co n v ict ion s w ere sp ec ifi ca ll yex clud ed fro m the c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egorycal cul at i ons under§ 4A 1. 2( e) due t o t hei rage, thos e convi ct i ons w er e al r eady a c c o u n te d f

o r, a n d a n u p w a rd d e p a rt u re b a s e d o n th o s e c o n v ic tio n s w a s u n w a rr a n te d . H o w ev er, ap p li ca ti o n n o te 8 to § 4 A 1 . 2 stat es th at th e c o u rtm ayu p w ard lyd ep art un d er § 4 A 1 . 3 if i t “find s tha t a sen tenc e im p o sed o u tsi d e this ti m e p eriod is ev iden ce o f sim il ar, ors er i ous di s s i m i l ar , cr i m i nal conduct . ” Fur t her , the ul t i m at e s t andar d s etfor t h for7

u p w ard d ep artures u n d er § 4 A 1 . 3 is w h ethe r “the d ef en d an t’ s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry s ubs t ant i al l yunder - r epr es ent s t he s er i ous nes s of the def endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryorthe l i kel i hood t hatt he def

endantw i l l comm i tot hercr i m es . ” U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3( a) ( 1) . A s t he cour tnot ed, A dams’ pr i orconvi ct i ons demonstr at ed a pa t t ern of vi ol entbehavi orand i ndi cat ed the pos s i bi l i t yt hatA dams coul d comm i tnew act s of vi ol ence i m m edi at el yupon re le a s e f ro m in c a rc e ra tio n . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o u n d , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 (a )(4 )(A ), th a t A d a m s’s c rim in a l h isto rya n d lik e lih o o d o f re c id iv ism m o st c lo se ly r es embl ed def

endant s i n cat egor i es 5 or6. G i vi ng A dams the bene fi tof the doubt , the cour tdepart ed upw ar d onl yt o cat egory5. T hi s departur e w as s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. Second, t he upw ar d departur e pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 2 appl i cat i on not e 8 w as re a so n a b le. A p p lica tio n n o te 8 sta tes : “I f th e o f f e n se in v o lv e d . . . a th re a t to a f a m ily m e m b e r o f

th e v ic tim , a n u p w a rd d e p a rt u re m a yb e w a rr a n te d .” U .S .S .G . § 2 B 3 .2 a p p lica tio n n o te 8 . In h is le tter to T a rm a n , A d a m s d e m a n d e d $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 in o rd e r to re f ra in fr om harm i ng T arm an and hi s fami l y , and he e m phas i zed thi s thr eatbyunder l i ni ng the w or d “fa m i l y . ” A dams ar gues t hatt he thr eatt o T arm an’ s fami l ys houl d notbe c o n sid e re d u n d e r a p p lica tio n n o te 8 b e c a u se n o e v id e n c e su g g e sts th a t T a rm a n ’s f a m ily w as ever aw are of t he thr eat . H ow ever, app l i cat i on no t e 8 d oes no trequi re an aw areness o f th e th re a t b yth e v ictim ’s f a m ily . T h e f

a c t th a t a th re a t is m a d e a g a in st a f a m ily m e m b e r o f

th e v ic tim m a yb e , b yits e lf , a n a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e o f th e c ri m e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C uddy , 1 4 7 F . 3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 6 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s8

fi ndi ng of a tw o- l evel upw ar d departur e on ac countof the thr eatt o T arm an’ s fami l yw as r eas onabl e. T h ir d , the u p w ard v arian ce w as re aso n ab le. “V arian ce s . . . are d iscreti o n ary change s t o a gui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange ba s ed on a j udge’ s r evi ew of al l the § 3553( a) fac t or s . . . . ” Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 578 F. 3d 221, 226 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . So l ong as the s ent ence “fa l l s w i t hi n t he br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of A dams’ offe ns e, hi s hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs , the ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e, and t he p ossi bil i t yof sen t encing d i spari t i es. Itfou nd especi al l yprobati ve ev i den ce of A dam s’ dan gerousn ess and l i keli ho od of reoff end i ng , bu tbalanced those con si derat i on s agai nst A d a m s’ a g e a n d e x p e rt tes tim o n yth a t A d a m s c o u ld im p ro v e w ith a d e q u a te m e n tal h e a lth tr e a tm e n t. A f ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a p p ro p ria tely cons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and thatthe over al l s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. V. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth , 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.