2011 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
6-29-2011 

# U S A v . R ob e r t S cott , II
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 . 09-1203

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_2011

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 2011 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 . R o be r t S c ott , I I " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 993. 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_2011/993NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________ No. 09

- 1203

__________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. ROBERT SCOTT, II, a/k/a Lil Rob, a/k/a Clever Robert D. Scott, II , Appellant

__________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C . Criminal No. 1

- 05

- cr - 00443

- 012 ) District Judge: The Honorable Yvette Kane

__________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 25, 2011 BEFORE: BARRY, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
. (Filed : June 29, 2011 )

__________ OPINION OF THE COURT

__________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge
. Robert Scott, II pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport individuals for purposes of engaging in prostitution, coerc ing and entic ing individuals to travel to engage in2 prostitution, and interstate travel with intent to distribute proceeds of prostitution , in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2421, 2422 (a) , and 195 2 (a) . He also pleaded guilty to a separate count of interstate t ra nsportation for purposes of prostitution , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (a)(3)
. Quoting Scott’s brief, he appeals the following: 1. Whether the cross

- reference to section U.S.S.G. 2G1.1 of the advisory guidelines should apply because no evidence was produced which was not hearsay, subject to cross

examination or otherwise secured with the indicia of reliability and clear and convincing evidence. 2. Whether sufficient evidence existed to permit a two point enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2A3.1(b)(4)(B ) because bodily injury is deemed to have occurred if the offense involved conduct constituting criminal sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. 2241 or 2242 or any similar offense under state law. Appellant’s Brief, p. 1. We review the factual findings of the Dist rict Court for clear error and have plenary review over the District Court’s interpretation of the Guidelines. United States v. Jimenez , 513 F.3d 62 , 85 (3d Cir. 2008). T he District Court established a base offense level according to U
. S
. S entencing G uidelines Manual § 2G1.1 (200 6 )
. H e claims that the District Court improperly applied the cross - reference to section 2A3.1 in calculating his sentence because it credited unreliable hearsay evidence, not subjected to cros s - examination , that he personally prostituted minors
. H is objection to such evidence as unreliable hearsay is irrelevant because there is no question that the conspiracy

— which included Scott’s father among the co

conspirators

— routinely lured minors and young women into prostitution, an d then kept3 them prostituting by creating an environment of fear through the use of coercion, manipulation and physical brutality against them. This conduct was commonplace in the conspiracy . Scott even acknowledges that his co

- conspirators used violence against the victims
. As such, the record contains ample evidence of relevant , reasonably foreseeable conduct to support the District Court’s cross - reference to section 2A3.1
. Likewise, Scott’s assertion of error regarding the District Court’s applicatio n of a two
- level enhancement for serious bodily injury , section 2A3.1(b)(4), misses the point. As noted above, Scott’s guilty plea makes all reasonably foreseeable acts of co

conspirators relevant conduct for purposes of the enha ncement. Therefore, even were we to disregard evidence of Scott’s violence towards women a nd girls that he prostituted , the record is replete with testimony of victims who had broken bones, concussions, and deep lacerations from beatings they suffered at the hands of co

- conspirato r pimps
. Scott does not deny knowledge of the violence and injury inflicted by his co

- conspirators, he merely argues that did not have any control over their conduct . T he District Court did not err by attributing this enhancement to Scott in calculating his sentence. For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of sentence of the District Court.