2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-29-2011

USA v. Robert Scott, II

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-1203

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Robert Scott, II" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 993.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/993
NOT PRECEDENTIAL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, coercing and enticing individuals to travel to engage in 
2

prostitution, and interstate travel with intent to distribute proceeds of prostitution, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2421, 2422(a), and 1952(a). He also pleaded guilty to a

separate count of interstate transportation 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 crossexamination 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 District 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). 

The District Court established a base offense level according to U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 2G1.1 (2006). He 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 cross-examination, that he personally

prostituted minors. 

His objection to such evidence as unreliable hearsay is irrelevant because there is 

no question that the conspiracy—which included Scott’s father among the coconspirators—routinely lured minors and young women into prostitution, and then kept 
3

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 application 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 coconspirators relevant conduct for purposes of the enhancement. Therefore, even were we 

to disregard evidence of Scott’s violence towards women and 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-conspirator 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. The 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.