2003 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

4-25-2003 

# U SA v . W i l li ams 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 01-3615

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_2003

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 sit y 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 2003 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 sit y 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 . W i l l i a m s " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 622. 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_2003/622NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 01-3615

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. NATH ANIEL WILLIAM S, Appellant

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania D.C. C riminal No . 01-cr-0017 8-1 (Hon orable H arvey Bartle, III)

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

February 27, 2003 Be for e: S CIR ICA , GR EE NB ER G a nd G IBS ON *, Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: April25, 2003)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

*The Honorable John R. Gibson, United Stat es Circui t Judge for the Eight

h Judici al Circuit , si tting by des ignati on.1 The indict ment charged Wil liams wit h the fol lowing twelve counts: (1) four counts of conspir acy to inter fere with commerce by r obbery , in vi olati on of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; (2) two counts of interfe rence with commerce by r obbery , in vi olati on of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; (3) three count s of using and carrying a fi rearm during a crime of vi olence, in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(1)(A); and (4) three c ounts of br andishi ng a fire arm during a c rime of violence, in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The governm ent moved to dismiss the three counts of

using and car

ry ing a fi rearm in e xchange for Will iams’s e ntry into t he plea agr eem ent. T he D istrict Co urt g ran ted th e m otio n. 2 SC IRI CA , Circuit

Judge

. Defendant, Nathaniel Wil liams, appeals f rom the sent ence imposed by the Dist rict Cour t. We wil l a ffirm. I. Williams entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to violati ons stemming from hi s part icipation in three armed robberi es of large reta il s tores and from hi s ro le i n a pl an ne d, fou rth ar m ed ro bb er y. 1 Intwo of t he r obb er ie s, Wil li ams orchest rated t he plan car

ried out by hi s armed co-cons pirat ors and shar ed in the proceeds totaling $16 9,000 . In the th ird rob bery, an a rmed William s infiltrate d the s tore w ith his co-consp irators and stole $4 2,000 at gu npoint. Be fore W illiams and his co -conspirators fl ed, one of t

hem p is to l- whi ppe d a s ecuri ty guard . Th e Di stri ctCour t s ent enc ed Wi ll iams to 43 y ears’ impris onment foll owed by thr ee ye ars of supe rvise d relea se. Wil liams has app eale d. Willi ams contends hi s sente nce should be va cated and t hat the matter

should be remanded for r e-sent encing. Willi ams argues t he Distr ict Court

(1) er roneousl y appl ied2 U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(7)(B) provides for a one-point enhancement to the base offense

levelof 20 where the amount of l oss res ulting from a robbery is more t

han $10,000 and less t han $50,000. U.S.S.G. § 2B3. 1(b)(7) (C) provi des for a t wo point enhancement where the amount of l oss res ulting from a robbery is more t

han $50,000 and l ess than $25 0,000 . In W illiams’s c ase, the Distric t Cou rt determ ined th at the lo ss am oun ts resu lting fro m th e thr ee ro bbe ries w ere $ 49,0 00, $ 42,0 00, a nd $ 120 ,000

. 3 U.S.S.G. § 2B3. 1(b)(3) (A) provide s for a t wo-point enhanc ement if any victim of the ro bb er y su sta in ed bo di ly in ju ry. 4 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, “Obstructing or Impeding the Adm inistr ation of Justice, ” provides: If (A ) the de fend ant w illfully obstru cted o r impe ded, o r attem pted to obstruc t or i mpede, the a dminist rati on of just ice during the cours e of the invest igati on, pros ecuti on, or s entenci ng of the i nstant offense of conviction, an d (B) the o bstructive con duct related to (i) the defendan t’s offense of convi ction and any r elevant conduct; or (i i) a cl osely relat ed offense, increase the offense level by two levels. According to t

he Present ence Investigati on Report, Willi ams atte mpted to have hi s exwife li e to the FBI about his whereabouts during the robbery , and he at tempted t o bribe a potential adversar

y witness.

5 In his pro s e brief , William s inco rrectly states th at the D istrict Co urt sen tence d him to 39 year s under 18 U.S. C. § 924(c)( 1)(C). In fact , the Distri ct Court imposed six of t he 39 years for h is firs t fire arm offens e, pu rsua nt to 18 U .S.C . § 92 4(c )(1)( A) (ii). 3 two one-point

enhancements and one two-point enhancement t o his base offense le vel under U .S.S.G. § 2B 3.1(b)(7)(B), (C ); 2 (2) er roneousl y appl ied a two-point enhanc ement to his b ase o ffen se leve l und er U .S.S.G . § 2B 3.1(b )(3)(A ) for p istol-w hipp ing the secu rity guard; 3 (3) er

roneousl y appl ied a two-point enhanc ement under U.S. S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruc tion of j usti ce; 4 and (4) er roneousl y se ntenced hi m to 33 years for asecond and third violation of 1 8 U.S .C. § 924 (c)(1)(A)(ii). 5 Willi ams also cont ends he did not knowingly , int elli gently , and vol untari ly enter into the gui lty

plea becaus e the Dist

rict6 W e ex ercis e ple nar y revie w o ver the D istrict Co urt’s inter pre tatio n of U.S .S.G . § 2B 3.1( b)(3 )(A ), w hile w e rev iew its fin din gs o f fa ct fo r clea r erro r. See United St ates v. Butch , 256 F.3d 171, 177 (3d Cir. 200 1) (providing that our review of district court’s “i nt er pr et at io n a nd a

ppl ic at io n of

th e Se nt en ci ng G ui de line s i s p le na ry , w he re as we review its find ings of fa ct for clear error.”)

7 The Distri ct Court’ s findi ng of a factualbasis i s ordinarily r eviewed for abuse of disc retio n. Un ited Sta tes v. C efara tti , 221 F.3d 502, 509 (3d Cir. 2000). Whether or not Wil li ams ’s fai lure to ra is e thi s i ss ue b el ow tri gge rs pl ai n er ro r r evi ew i s s ubj ect

to som e disa gre em ent o utsid e of this c ircu it. See id . at

509 n.3. Becaus e we conclude that the D ist ric t C ou rt e sta bl ish ed an ad eq ua te fac tu al b as is, w e n ee d n ot re ac h t hi s is su e to da y. 4 Court did not establish an adequate factual basi s for the plea. For the foll owing reasons,

we conc lude W illiams’s c onten tions lac k m erit. II. W ith th e ex cep tion of W illiam s’s a llega tion s of erro r ba sed on U .S.S .G. § 2B3 .1 (b )( 3) (A) 6 and the gui lty plea, 7 we review his ap peal for plain error b ecau se he did not raise thes e ob jectio ns a t the s ente ncin g he arin g. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52 (b); United Statesv. Vazquez , 271 F.3 d 93 , 100 (3d Cir . 200 1) (e n ba nc)

. In Willi ams’s vie w, the Dist rict Court err ed by applyi ng the sent encing enhancements bec ause he did not stipulate to the l oss amounts in the ple a agreement, and because the government di d not provi de suffici ent evi dence to suppor t the Dis tri ct Cour t’ s de te rmi natio n of

th e l oss amount s a t t

he s ent enc in g he ar in g. Si mil ar ly , Wi ll iams dispu tes the tw o-po int enh ance men t und er U .S.S.G . § 3C 1.1 be caus e he d id no t stipulate to it in the p lea ag reem ent an d bec ause the go vern men t did no t prese nt evid ence in sup por t of th e en han cem ent a t the s ente ncin g he arin g.5

But the loss a mou nt calculations and the finding o f obstruction o f justice were supp orted b y the gov ernm ent’s e viden tiary proffer at the plea h earing and w ere set forth in th e Pr ese nten ce In ves tigat ion Re por t. See C efara tti , 221 F.3d at 509 (3d Cir. 2000) (re co gn izi ng th at fac tu al b as is for gu ilty p lea re qu ire d b y F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11 (f) is sati sfied by

government’s evident iary proffer, present ence report, or any means approp riate for specific case ). In addition, the plea ag reemen t provided tha t “the Cou rt may make fact

ual and l egal det erminat ions that dif fer from the parti es’ posi tions and that may res ult in an incre ase or decr ease in t he Sentenci ng Guideline s range and t he sentenc e that m ay be imp ose d.” W illiam s is b oun d by th e term s of the p lea a gre em ent. See United States v . Ma strang elo , 172 F.3d 288, 294 (3d Cir. 199 9) (observing that defend ant’s agree men t to stipula tion in p lea ag reem ent on inform ed ad vice o f cou nsel o rdinar ily preclu des o bjectio n on appe al). Sinc e the u ndisp uted facts an d con clusion s con tained in the Pres entence I nvesti gation Report provi de a proper ba sis for sentencing dete rmin ation s, the Dis trict C our t did not err b y app lying th e se nten cing enh anc em ents . See United St

ates v. Gibbs , 190 F.3d 188, 207 (recogni zing that “[a] conclusi on in the pre sen tenc e inv estig ation rep ort th at go es u nch allen ged by the defend ant is , of c our se, a pro per bas is fo r sen tenc e de term inati on.” ) (qu otati on m ark s om itted ). Williams’s co ntention that he d id not person ally pistol-whip the security guard or, in the a lter

native , that he did not

stipulate to thi s sente ncing enhancement in the pl ea agreement, also fai ls. With respec t to Wil liams’ s fir st ar gument, i t is not si gnific ant for6

purposes of a

pply ing U.S.S. G. § 2B3.1(b)( 3)(A) whether Willi ams or one of his coconspirators st

ruck the security

guard; under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, W illiam s is re spo nsib le fo r rea son ably f ore see able acts of h is co hor ts. See U.S .S.G . § 1B 1.3(a)( 1)(B ) (prov iding th at in join tly underta ken c rimina l activity defenda nt is responsible for r easonably foreseeabl e acts of

others taken i n further ance of joi nt cri minal acti vity). Furthermore, Willi ams stipulate d to the Dis tri ct Court’ s imposi tion of an enh anc em ent u nde r the Un ited S tates Sen tenc ing Gu ideli nes . M astran gelo , 172 F.3d at 294. Relying upon Harris v. United Stat es , 122 S. Ct. 2406 (2002), Willi ams argues 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C) is a separate st atute from 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), which mu st be charged se parate ly

in the indictment . In Ha rris , however, the Supreme Court observed that t he “princ iple paragraph [§ 924( c)(1) (A)] defi nes a si ngle crime and its s ubsecti ons identi fy s entenci ng factor s.” Id. at 2412. Titl e 18, § 924(c) (1)(C) of the Unite d States Code is a subse ction of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(1)(A) that mandat es the i mpositi on of a minim um senten ce of

25 years for a s econ d or su bseq uent c onv iction. A ccord ingly, it is “consis tent wit

h tradi tionalunderst andings about how sentencing f

actors operate ; the requir ed findi ngs constrain, rather than ext end, t

he sentenc ing judge’ s discretion. ” Id . at 2412-2413. For

this reason, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(1)( C) is a se ntenci ng factor that doe s not impli cate Will iams’s right t o an indic tment, tri al, or conviction upon proof of ea ch elem ent of

the crim e beyon d a rea sona ble do ubt.8 Williams conflates F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(c) and (f) by arguing that the D istrict Court

fail ed to est ablis h his under standi ng of the ess entia l ele ments of each charged cri me, as re qu ire d b y F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(c) , because there was an inadequate fac tual ba sis for the pl ea , as re qu ire d b y F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(f) . Because we are s atis fied that the re is an adequ ate factual basis, w e will conside r his argum ent unde r F ED . R. C RIM . P. 1 1(c ). F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(f) provides that “ [n]otwit hstandi ng the accept ance of a plea of guilt y, the cour t shou ld no t enter a judg men t upo n suc h a ple a w ithout m aking such inqu iry as shall sati sfyit t

hat the re is a factualbasis f or the pl ea.” The Dist

rict Court rel ied upon the fac tual b asis e stab lishe d by th e go ver nm ent’ s ev iden tiary pr offer at t he p lea h earin g. See Cefa ratti , 221 F.3d at

509 (3d Cir. 2000) (re cognizi ng that f actualbasis f

or guil ty plea re qu ire d b y F ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(f) is satisfied by gov ernmen t’s evidentiary proffer, pre sen tenc e rep ort, o r an y mea ns a ppr opr iate for th e sp ecif ic ca se). 7 Fina lly, Williams asserts th at he d id no t kno win gly, intelligen tly, and vo luntarily enter into the gui lty

plea becaus e the Dist

rict Court did not

adequately es tabli sh the factual base s of the offenses ch arged un der 18 U .S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A)(ii). 8 Wil li ams argues t hat it cannot be det ermined fr om the plea col loquy whether he re aliz ed that he was pleading gui lty

to one, two, or t

hree count s of the indictment charging a

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(1)(A)(ii ). But Wil liams’ s argument i s vit iate d by hi s admissi on that “the fact ual rec ord here coul d have equally suppor ted” a pl ea of guil ty

on any of t

he counts charging a viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c )(1)(A)(ii ). Wil liams’ s admissi on that the rec ord est ablis hes a fact ual basi s for a pl ea of guil ty to any of the count s and, therefore, all of the c ounts cha rging a violation o f 18 U .S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A)(ii),

con clus ively e stab lishe s tha t his g uilty ple a w as k now ing , intel ligen t, and vol unt ary. See United Stat

es v. Faul

ks , 143 F.3d 133, 138-139 (3d Cir . 1998) ( recogniz ing that “[a]8

knowing and voluntaryplea constitut es an admiss ion of al l material f acts al leged i n the indictment”). III. For the for egoing rea sons, t he sentenc e imposed by the Dist rict Court willbe affirmed.TO THE C LERK: Please fi le the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Anthony J. Sciri ca Circuit Judge