2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-30-2011

USA v. Frank Chappell

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1677

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. Frank Chappell" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 28.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/28
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

No. 11-1677

______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FRANK CHAPPELL,

a/k/a FRANK ACHUFF

FRANK CHAPPELL,

Appellant

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-10-00576-001)

Honorable Stewart Dalzell, District Judge

______________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 16, 2011

BEFORE: SLOVITER, VANASKIE, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 30, 2011)

______________

OPINION OF THE COURT

______________

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION
2

This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal by Frank Chappell from a 

judgment of conviction and sentence entered on March 3, 2011, following the District 

Court’s imposition of a sentence on him on the basis of his plea of guilty to a single count 

of an indictment charging him with passing counterfeit United States currency and aiding 

and abetting in that offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 2. The District Court 

calculated that Chappell had an offense level of 7 and a criminal history category of VI 

and thus had an advisory guidelines range of 15 to 21 months. It then imposed a 

custodial sentence of 20 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised 

release. In addition, the Court imposed a fine and ordered Chappell to make restitution to 

the victim of his offense. Chappell challenges only the custodial aspect of his sentence.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to review the sentence. We 

review the sentence for abuse of discretion with respect to its procedural and substantive 

reasonableness and thus give deference to the District Court’s judgment. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 56, 128 S.Ct. 586, 600 (2007); United States v. Cooper, 437 

F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Kimbrough v. United States, 

552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007). 

Chappell’s argument focuses on his contention, though he does not use the term,

that the District Court twice “double counted” a sentence imposed at one time in 

calculating his criminal history. The first alleged double counting was with respect to a 

sentence imposed in Philadelphia County on August 19, 1996. At that time, the state 

court sentenced him for two stolen property offenses committed on separate days, 
3

February 9, 1995, and April 27, 1996, the second offense being committed while he was 

on bail for the first offense. The state court imposed a single sentence of the period of 

time served to 23 months (with immediate parole) to be followed by a term of probation 

for 2 years on the two convictions. The second double counting, which we review for 

plain error as he did not raise this point in the District Court, see United States v. Couch, 

291 F.3d 251, 252-53 (3d Cir. 2002), relates to sentences that the Common Pleas Court of 

Forest County, Pennsylvania, imposed on March 28, 2007. In that instance, the court 

imposed (1) a sentence of imprisonment for 12 to 14 months to be followed by a two-year 

term of probation for indecent assault on another inmate that Chappell committed on 

March 24, 2006, during a time that he was in custody for breach of the terms of probation 

imposed following his conviction for earlier offenses and (2) a sentence for institutional 

vandalism that Chappell committed on August 20, 2006, of a two-year term of probation 

to be served consecutively to the indecent assault term. It will be noted that the March

28, 2007 sentences are at issue here because the court imposed them at a single time even 

though, unlike the sentence the court imposed on Chappell in Philadelphia County, the 

state court in Forest County did not impose a single sentence for the separate offenses.

We see no error and thus obviously no plain error in the District Court’s 

calculations. Indeed, Chappell in his brief acknowledges that the “District Court’s 

calculation of the applicable guidelines range was not error in and of itself,” appellant’s 

br. at 6, though he does contend that the sentencing range drastically overstated his 

criminal history. Moreover, with respect to the Court’s treatment of the state court 

August 19, 1996 sentence, he recognizes that the Court has affirmed sentences that 
4

district courts “have imposed using similar calculations,” id, at 8, citing as an example 

United States v. Hankerson, 496 F.3d 303, 311 n.5 (3d Cir. 2007).

Though plural sentences imposed at a single time ordinarily are not counted 

separately in calculating a defendant’s criminal history category, see U.S.S.G. §

4A1.2(a)(2) cmt. n.3, as the government points out, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) provides that 

“[p]rior sentences always are counted separately if the sentences were imposed for 

offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest (i.e., the defendant is arrested for the 

first offense prior to committing the second offense).” See United States v. Hallman, 23 

F.3d 821, 825 (3d Cir. 1994). Chappell was arrested on the first stolen property offense 

on February 11, 1995, and he committed the second offense on April 27, 1996. The state 

court subsequently sentenced him for both offenses on August 19, 1996. Thus, the

guidelines required that the Philadelphia County stolen property offenses should have 

been counted separately, as they were. The March 28, 2007 Forest County sentence 

differs from the Philadelphia County sentence with respect to the question concerning the 

application of the guidelines in that when Chappell committed his first offense on March 

24, 2006, he already was in custody. We are satisfied, however, that a continuation of 

custody should be regarded as an arrest for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2), as 

functionally it surely operates in that way.

1

 1 We note that the government in its brief recites that the indecent assault and vandalism 

offenses “were separated by an intervening arrest.” Appellee’s br. at 17 n.4. It makes 

this statement, however, without citation to the record and thus we cannot be certain that 

the government’s contention is correct as we do not know if Chappell was arrested 

formally for the indecent assault. Nevertheless, the possibility that the government is 

 In reaching this conclusion we are well 
5

aware that courts have wrestled with the question in other contexts, particularly when 

dealing with motor vehicle stops in which drivers usually are detained for short time 

periods, of nuances in defining what degree of custody constitutes an arrest for purposes 

of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Leal-Felix, ____F.3d ____, 2011 

WL 5966202 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2011) (en banc). But, no matter how motor vehicle stop 

cases are resolved with respect to determining if there has been an arrest they are 

distinguishable from situations in which the offender is in penal institutional custody at 

the time of his offense. We are satisfied that here the District Court’s calculations were 

correct and it sentenced Chappell within the guidelines range.

We recognize that Chappell contends that the District Court in sentencing him did 

not meaningfully consider the nature and circumstances of his current offense and did not 

reasonably apply the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). In particular, as we 

have indicated, he contends that the seriousness of his criminal history has been 

overstated drastically. We, however, do not see any basis to hold that the District Court 

abused its discretion in imposing the sentence. In fact, if anything, the sentence it 

imposed seems lenient, particularly when Chappell’s criminal history is considered.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence 

entered March 7, 2011.

 

wrong in this respect does not matter as we are treating the continuation of custody as an 

arrest.