2004 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
4-13-2004 

# U SA v . F o s t e r 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 ocke t N o . 03-1791

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . F os t e r " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 845. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/845NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-1791
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. COLIN D. FOSTER,

Appellant
App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the We stern D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crimi nal Acti on No. 00-cr- 00136-3) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Alan N. Bloch
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

March 23, 2004
Be for e: R OT H, A M BR O, a nd C HE RT OF F, Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led April13, 2004)

OPINION
AM BR O, Circuit

Judge Colin D. Fost er appeal s the Dist rict Court’s s entenci ng order fol lowing the
revo cation of h is supe rvised release . Foste r argu es that th e D istrict Co urt abu sed its1 W e ha ve ju risdi ction pur sua nt to 18 U .S.C . § 37 42( a) an d 28 U.S .C. § 129 1.
2 Per United Stat

es v. Schwegel, 126 F.3d 551, 555 (3d Cir. 1997), t his i s the cor

rect standard of revie w for a dist rict court’ s decis ion to exc eed the Guidel ines’ sentencing

2 discr etion when i t sent enced Foster to three ye ars i n prison, in excess of the sentencing range provi ded in the United States Sentencing Guideline s (“Guidel ines”) . We disagr ee, and thu s affirm the D istrict Co urt’s ord er. I. In Jan uary 20 01, F oster p led gu ilty to (1) con spirac y to distribute and p osses s with intent to dis tribute more than 100 kilograms of marij uana and (2) c onspira cy to launder
mon etary instruments. He w as sentence d to 18 m onths imp risonmen t and a five year term of s upe rvise d re leas e. In Fe brua ry 2003 , the U nited S tates Pr obatio n O ffice filed a petition seek ing to revoke Fost er’s s upervis ed rele ase. The next month, the United States Dist rict Court for the Wester

n Distri ct of Pennsylvania held a hearing on the pe tition. At t he heari ng, Fost er admitted that he possessed and used cocaine in violati on of his supervised release conditi ons. The Dist

rict Court als o found that

Foster c ommitted s imple ass ault and har assm ent in vio latio n of Pen nsylv ania law
. The Distri ct Court revoked Foster ’s super vised r elease and sentenc ed him to t he statutory maximum period–three year s in prison. Foster appeals. 1 II. Foster argues that the Distri ct Court a bused it s discretion 2 in imposing a three yearrange for vi olati on of a supervi sed rel ease condi tion.
3 Foster a lso emphasi zes that the vic tim (Fos ter’ s wife) does not want pros ecuti on and that s he lie d to the pol ice when she re ported t he inci dent that res ulted in assaul t and haras sme nt cha rges. W e note that w hethe r Fos ter’s w ife w ants h im pro secu ted is irrele van t to th e de term inati on o f w heth er h e vio lated his s upe rvise d re leas e co ndi tion s. Moreov er, during the hearing, Foster’s wife confirmed that Foster had broken her wrist and bruis ed her ey e by pus hing her, though she deni ed her earlier testimony to the poli ce that t hey were arguing about Fos ter’ s use of drugs when the inci dent occur red. 3 senten ce in e xces s of th e G uidelin es sen tencin g ran ge be caus e, und er the re levan t state law, h e w ould not b e sen tence d to m ore tha n 26 mo nths in prison for the crime s of sim ple
assau lt and h arassm ent if p rosec uted in the state cour t. 3 We disagree. Un der U.S .S.G . § 7B 1.4, t he r ang e of Fo ster’ s pris on t erm wa s 12 to 1 8 m ont hs. Foste r wa s sente nced to three years in ex cess o f this ran ge. H ow ever, w e prev iously held that t he range i n the Guidel ines i s “merely advisor y. ” Schwegel , 1 26 F .3 d a t 5 53. As long as the s enten cing c ourt co nside rs this ran ge in its e valua ting pro cess, the senten ce is not rev ersib le so lely be cau se it e xce ede d th e ran ge. Id. In this case, the D istrict Court consider ed the re commended sentence under the Guidel ines but

determi ned that

the longer sen tence w as necessa ry to address adeq uately the seriousness of Foster’s
con tinu ing vio latio n of

the la w a fter rece ivin g a le nien t sen tenc e fo r his i nitia l con victi on. Morever, nothing in the Guide lines requir es the s entenci ng court to consider the possibl e stat e sentenc e that the defendant

would recei ve in the stat e court f or the conduc t wh ich is sim ultane ously in v iolation of h is supe rvised release terms . Furth ermo re, in this case, t he District Court ’s deci sion t o impose a three ye ar ter m was not solely bas ed on4

Foste r’s simp le assa ult and haras sme nt cha rges. H e viola ted the cond itions o f his supervi sed rel ease by

possessing and using coca ine as wellas bycommitting assaul t and harassment . Therefor e, we conclude t hat the Distri ct Court di d not abuse its di scretion by impo sing a term o f imp risonm ent ex ceed ing the poss ible state senten ce Fo ster w ould
rece ive. * * * * * * We affirm the Dist

rict Court’s order sent encing Fost er to t hree y ears i n prison upo n re vok ing his s upe rvise d re leas e.5