2005 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

4-28-2005 

# U S A v . S cott
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1160

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

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 2005 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 . v i l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . S c ott " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1262. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1262P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 02- 4521, 03- 1130 & 03- 1160

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v.
K EV I N D A V I S,

A ppel l ant at N o. 02- 4521 K EV I N A

. M I N N I S,

A ppel l ant at N o. 03- 1130 REG I NA L SCOTT,

A ppel l ant at N o. 03- 1160

Sur D eni al of Pet i t i on forR ehea r i ng E n B anc and M ot i on t o D efe r D i s pos i t i on of A l l Pendi ng D i r ect C r i m i nal A ppeal s Pr es ent i ng B ooke r C l ai m s Pendi ng R es ol ut i on of t he Pet i t i on for R ehea r i ng E n B anc ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal N os . 02- cr - 00106- 1, 02- cr - 00106- 3, 02- cr - 00106- 2)Jones v. U ni t ed St at es , 526 U

. S. 227 ( 1 9 9 9) ( cons t r ui ng 1 pr ovi s i ons o f fe d er al car j acki ng s t at ut e t o s et for t h addi t i onal 2 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , S L OVI T E R, NYGAA RD , AL I T O, RO T H, M c K EE, RE N D ELL , BA RR Y , A M BR O , FU EN TES, S M I T H, F I S HE R, VAN AN T WER P E N, a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 28, 2005)

OP I NI ON S UR DE NI AL OF T HE P E T I T I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG EN B ANC AN D TH E M OTI ON TO D EFER

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge

. T h e g o v ern m e n t h as m o v edto d ef er d isp o sitio n o f

all s e nt e nc i ng appe a l s pe ndi ng r e s ol ut i on of i t s p e t i t i on for r e he ar i ng e n banc i n thi s c a s e . W e have de ni e d the pe t i t i on for reh earin g an dw ill d en y

th e m o tio n as w ell. The Supr e m e Court ’ s de c i s i on i n Un ited State s v
. Bo oker brou gh t a

bo ut swee ping changes i n the re al m of federal s e nt e nc i ng. 125 S. Ct

. 738 ( 2005)

. Dr awi ng upon i t s r e a s oni ng i n Jones , Appr e ndi , and B la kely , the Bo oker m ajority held that 1el em ents of o ff ense, rat her t han sent encing co nsi derat i on s, so th a t f a c ts trig g e rin g su c h p ro v isio n s m u st b e c h a rg e d in in d ictm e n t an d p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t); Appr endi v. N ew Jer s ey , 530 U

. S. 466, 490 ( 2 0 00) ( “O t her t han t he fa ct of a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n , a n y f a c t t h a t i n c r e a s e s t h e p e n a l t y f o r a c r i me b e y o n d th e p re sc rib e d sta tu to ry m a x im u m m u st be su b m itt e d to a ju ry , an d p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.”); B l akel y v. W a sh i ngt on , 542 U

. S.

- - - , 124 S. C t

. 2531 ( 2004) ( ext endi ng Appr endi to W ash ing ton ’s st ate se n tenc ing sch em e). 3 m andat ory

e nhanc e m e nt

of as e nt e nc e unde r

the Gui de lin es, b asedo n f

acts f o u n db y th e co u rt alo n e, v io lat e s th e S ix th A m en dm en t. Bo oker , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 6 . T o rem edy th is c ons t i t ut i ona l i nfi rm i ty , the Court e xc i s e d that pr ovi s i on of the s t at u t e m ak i n g ap p l i c at i o n o f th e G u i d e l i n e s m an d at o ry. Id

. at 76 4. I n the afte rm ath o f Bo oker , the Fe de r a l Se nt e nc i ng G u i d e l i n e s

–o n c e am an d at o ry r e g i m e c i r c u m s c r i b i n g t he d iscretio n o f

d istrict co u rt j u d g es–are “ef f ectiv ely ad v iso ry .” I d. at 7 5 7 . U n d er th e p o st- Bo oker s e nt e nc in g fr am e work, Distri ct Co urts will consider the a pp li ca ble a dv is ory

Gu idel ines ran g e in additi on to fact ors s et fo rth in 1 8 U .S.C. § 35 53 (a ). See Boo ke r , 1 2 5 S

. C t

. a t 7 6 4 -6 5

. B o o ker is ap p licab le to all cases o n d irect rev iew

. I

d. at 7 6 9

. Dire ct appeal s of sente nces im po se d b ef

o re Bo oker g en erally p res e n t tw o k in d s o f

claim s: f irst, d ef en d an ts w h o se sen ten ces w ere en h a n c e d b y j u d icial f

actf in d in g raise S ix th Am e ndm e nt

c l a i m s ; s e c ond, de fe ndant s w h o c ont e nd theW her e a de fenda nt pr es er ved a B ooker cl ai m b ef o re t he 2 d i s t r i c t c o u r t , we wi l l r e v i e w fo r ha r ml e s s e r r o r u n d e r F e d

. R. C ri m . P

. 5 2 (a). 4 Distri ct Co urts er

roneou sl y tr eate d the Gu idel ines as m andatory r ath e r th an a d v i s o ry. In ou r r evie w o f p re - B o o ker ca se s, m any of th e d ir ec t appe a l s c a l l for

apl a i n e rr or

ana l y s i s be c aus e de fe ndant s di d not raise th e sen ten cin g issu e b ef o re th e D istrict C o u rt. See Fe d. R. Crim . P. 52(b). Wher e a defend ant dem on st ra te s “ er ror” that 2 is “pla in,” and that “ affects substantia l ri gh ts ,” we m ay corr ec t that e rr or whe r e the “ fa i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , or publ i c r e put at i on of j u d icial p ro ceed in g s” w as af f ected

. Uni te d States v
. Ev ans , 155 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 3d Ci r . 1998)

. As e xpl a i ne d i n Ev ans , an e rr or will affect s ub st anti al ri gh ts wh er e it is p re ju dici al and “affecte d the outcom e of the distri ct cou rt proceedi ng s. ” I

d. ( quot i ng Uni te d States v
. Olano , 507 U.S. 72 5, 73 4 (19 93 ))

. Wher e the Distri ct

Co urt i m po se d a se ntence gr e at er

than the m axim

um authoriz ed by

the fac ts fo un d b y

the j u ry al on e, the outcom e of sente ncing w as al te re d to the d ef en dant’s de tr i m e nt

. Mandat ory

e nhanc e m e nt

of as e nt e nc e i n vi ol at i on of th e S i x th A m e n d m e n t i s p r e j u d i c i a l an d a f

f e c t s t he s u b stant i a l r i ght s of the de fe ndant

. As we have not e d,

“ i m pos i ng a s ent ence not aut hor i zed by l aw s er i ous l y aff ect s t he fai r nes s , i ntegrit y , and r eput at i on of t he pr ocee di ngs .” Ev ans , 155 F. 3d at

252 ( c i t i ng Un ited States v. Do zi er , 119 F. 3d 239, 24 4-45 (3d Cir. 19 97 )) . I n cas es wh er e a defend ant’ s s ente ncePr i or t o B ooker , w e a d d resse d a sim il ar issue in o u r en 3 banc opi ni on i n U

ni t ed St at es v. V

as quez , 2 7 1 F

. 3 d 9 3 (3d C ir

. 2001)

. I n V

as quez , t he def

endantw as charg ed w it h dr ug c o n s p ir a c y , o b s tr u c tio n o f ju s tic e , a n d w itn e s s ta m p e ri n g . V asquez w as co nv i ct ed of con spi racyt o d i st ri bu t e and po sses s co ca ine in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § § 8 4 6 an d 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A ), w hi ch pr es cr i bed a maxi m um s ent ence of 20 y ear s . B eca us e of t hr ee j udi ci al l y - found fa ct s – dr ug quant i t y , hi s l eade r s hi p r ol e, and at t empt ed obs t r uct i on of j us t i ce– t he D i s t r i ct J udge se n ten c e d h im to m o re th a n 2 4 y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. O n a p p e a l w e d i s c u s s e d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e j u d i c i a l l ydet er m i ned dr ug q u ant i t y . W e found V as quez’ s s ent ence e rr o n eo u s u n d er Appr endi beca us e t he “j udge, r at her t han t he j ur y , det er m i ned dr ug quant i t y and t hen s ent ence d V as quez t o .

. . a t er m i n exce s s of hi s . . . s t at ut or y m axi m um . ” 271 F. 3d at 99. D es pi t e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s er r or , how ever , w e found t hat V a sq u e z f

a iled to sh o w a n e f

f e c t o n h is s u b sta n tial rig h ts beca us e t he dr ug quant i t y w as never i n di s put e. T he quant i t y of dr ug s invol ved w as es t abl i s hed att r i al and s ubs t ant i at ed by sc ien tific e v id e n c e . V a sq u e z n e v e r c o n tes ted th e a m o u n t. A ccor di ngl y , w e hel d t hat V as quez’ s s ent ence w oul d have be en the s a m e if th e g o v ern m en t had su b m it ted d rug q u an ti tyfo r a j ur y det er m i nat i on, t hat i s , fai l ur e t o s ubm i t t hi s ques t i on t o t he j ur y , t her efor e– w hi l e an Appr endi vi ol at i on– had no ac t ual 5 wa s e nhanc e d ba s e d on fa c t s ne i the r a dm i tt ed t o nor

found by ajury , the r e for e , the de fe ndant c an de m ons tr at e pl a i n e rr or and m ay be e nt i t l e d t o r e s e nt e nc i ng. See Unite d States v . Hug hes , 3e f f e c t o n d e f

e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e . W e di d not have t he bene fi t of Bo oker w hen dec i di ng V as quez . N or di d w e hol d t hat an Ap p re n d i vi ol at i on at sent encing w i l l nev er affect a def e n d a nt’ s subst anti al ri gh t s; r at her , w e hel d t he s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of t he i ndi vi dual defe ndant i n t hat cas e w er e not aff ect ed.

6 401 F. 3d 540 ( 4th Ci r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng pl a i n e r r or and r e m andi ng for r e s e nt e nc i ng be c aus e de fe ndant – who wa s s e nt e nc e d t o 46 m on ths due to ju dici al fact find ing w here the jury verdic t au th o rizedo n ly

a 1 2 -m o n th sen ten ce–d em o n stratedth at h is substantia l r ights wer e a ff ec te d). Sim il ar ly , a

defend ant’ s s ubst anti al ri gh ts m ay have been a ffe c ted w h e r e the Di s tr i c t Court e rr e d by

tr e at i ng the Gu i de l i ne s a s m and at or

y r athe r than a dv i s or

y . At thi s s t a ge , we cann ot as ce rt ai n w hether

the Dis tr ic t C our

t wo ul d have i m

po se d agr e at e r or l e s s e r s e nt e nc e unde r an a dvi s ory fr am e work. But the m andato ry nature of

the Guideli nes c on tr olle d the Distri ct Co urt’ s analy si s. Beca use the se ntenci ng ca lc ulus was gove rne d by

aGui de l i ne s fr am e work e rr one ous l y be l i e v e d t o be m andatory , the ou tc om e of ea ch se ntenci ng hear ing con du ct ed u n d er th is f

ram ew o rkw as n ecessarily af f ected . A lth o u g h p lain e rr or jur i s pr ude nc e ge ne r a l l y pl a c e s the bur de n on an appe l l ant to dem on strate spec ific prejud ic e flowing f rom the Dis tr ic t Co urt’ s er ror, in this context– wh er e m andatory se ntenci ng was gove rne d by

an e rr one ous s c he m e – pr e judi c e c an be pr e s um e d.7 Se e Olano , 507 U. S. at 7 35 ( not i ng that c e rt a i n ty

pe s of e rr or s houl d, on pl a i n e rr or

r e vi e w, “ be pr e sum e d pr e judi c i a l i f the defend ant c anno t m ake a spec ific show ing o f

prejud ic e” ); Un i te d States v. Ad

am s , 252 F. 3d 276, 287 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) (“G iv en th e n atu re o f

th e rig h t [ o f allo cu tio n ] an dth e d if f icu lty of pr ov i ng pr e

ju di c e fr om it s v i ol at i on , we c on c l ud e that we s houl d pr e s um e pr e

judi c e whe n a de fe ndant s hows avi ol at i on of the r ig h t an d the opport uni ty for s uc h avi ol at i on t o have played a r ole i n the district court' s s ente ncing d ec is ion.”) (em p h asis in o rig in al); see a lso U n ited Sta tes v
. B a rn ett , 398 F .3 d5 1 6 , 5 2 8 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (p resu m in g p rej u d ice w h ere “it woul d be e xc e e di ngl y

di ffi c u lt” f

or de fe ndant

r a i s i ng Bo oker c l a i m t o s how that

the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s fa i l ur e to tr e at the S en ten cin g G u id elin es as ad v iso ry af f ectedh is sen ten ce). Furthe rm or e , a s not e d by the Court o f Appe a l s for the Sixth C ir cuit , “ [w ]e wo uld b e usurping the disc re ti on ar y po wer g r a n t e d t o th e d i s tr i c t

c o u rt s b y Bo oker

i f w e w e r e t o a s s u me th at th e d i s tr i c t

c o u rt w o u l dh av e g i v e n [ d e f

e n d an t ] th e s ame sen ten ce p o st- Bo oker .” Un ited States v. Oliv er , 397 F. 3d 369, 380 n. 3 ( 6th Ci r . 2005)

. Fa i l ur e t o r e m and for r e s e nt e nc i ng, the r e for e , c oul d a dve r s e l y a ffe c t the fa i rne s s and i nt e gr i ty of the pr oc e e di ngs . Ac c or di ngl y , de fe ndant s s e nt e nc e d und er the pr e vi ous l y m andat ory r e gi m e whos e s e nt e nc e s are b e i ng ch allen g edo n d irect ap p eal m ay b e ab le to d em o n strate p lainS e e B a rn e tt , 398 F. 3d at 516. I n B a rn e tt , defe ndant r ece i ved 4
a s ent ence w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange, di d not obj ectbefor e t he di s t r ict cour t , but chal l enged hi s s ent ence on appea l i n l i ght of B ooker

. S p ec ifi ca ll y , h e a rgu ed that the d ist ri ct co u rt ’s m and at oryapp l i cat i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes w as pla in e rro r. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e S ix th C irc u it fo u n d p lain e rro r, h o ld in g th a t B a rn e tt’s “ is a n a p p ro p ria te c a se in w h ich to pr es um e pr ej udi ce ” b eca us e t he mandat or y nat ur e of t he G uidel i nes a ffected t he d i st ri ct cou rt ’s sent encing calcul us, b e c a u se it w o u ld b e “ e x c e e d in g lyd if f icu lt” f o r a d e f e n d a n t to demonst r at e conc l us i vel y t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s er r or aff ect ed t he out come of t he proc eedi ng, and becaus e “w e si m pl y do not know how t he di s t r i ct cour t coul d have se nt ence d. ” I d. at 527- 29 ( quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. T he B a rn e tt C our t concl uded: Instea d o f spe cu lat ing as t o the distr ict c o u rt’s i nt ent i ons i n t he pr e- B ookerw o rld , an d tr y in g to ap p lytho se in tention s to p red ict the sam e c o u rt ’s se n ten c e u n d e r th e p o st- B ookersch em e, w e are convi nced t hat t he m os t pr udent cour s e of a ct i on i n t hi s case i s t o pr es um e pr ej udi ce gi ven t he d istin c t p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e d istr ic t co u rt w o u ld have i m pos ed a l ow er s ent ence und er the new p o st- B ookerfr amew or k and t he o n er ous bur den he w oul d fac e i n at t empt i ng t o es t abl ish that t he s ent enci ng cour t w oul d have i m pos ed s uch a 8 e rr o r an d pr e

judi c e . W e wi l l r e m and s uc h c a s e s for r e s e nt e nc i ng. 4s ent ence . 9 B o o ker appl i e s t o a l l c a s e s pe ndi ng on di r e c t r e vi e w. By r e m a n d i n g , w e e n s u r e th at e a c h d e f e n d an t t o w h o m Bo oker ap p lies is s e n t e n cedacco rd in g ly . T h is ap p ro ach resu lts in u n if o rm treatm en t o f

p o st -B o o ker d ef

en d an ts o n d irect ap p eal, fos t e r i ng c e rt a i nty i n the a dm i ni s tr at i on of jus t i c e and e ffi c i e nt us e of judi c i a l r e s our c e s . Mor e ove r , a s the Court of Appe a l s for the Se c ond Ci r c ui t

ha s not e d, “ c orr e c t i on of e rr or i n the c ont e xt of se nten ci n g d o es no t pre ci pitate

. . . burdensom e andof te n len g th y co n sequ en ce[ s] ” o n rem an d

. Uni te d States v
. Cros by , 3 9 7 F .3 d1 0 3 , 1 1 7 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). I n thi s opi ni on, we e xpr e ss no vi e w on wa i ve r or al te rnat ive s ente nces . W e wil l continue to re view ea ch appeal individu al ly . App el lants have bee n d ir ec te d to state wh ether they wish to chal le ng e their

se ntence un der Bo oker

. F o r th o se wh o d o n ot, we c on si der the appeal on it s m er it s. Wher e an appell ant r ai se s a Bo oker cl ai m and est abli shes plai n err or, howe ve r , we wi ll d ecid e c l a i m s of e rr or r e l at e d t o the c onvi c t i on, va c at e the s e nt e nc e , and r e m and for c ons i de r at i on o f th e ap p ro p riate s e n t e n c e b y th e D istrict C o u rt in th e f irst in stan ce. A ccor di ngl y , t he G over n m en t’ s M ot i on t o D efe r D i s pos i t i on of A l l Pendi ng C r i m i nal A ppeal s Pr es ent i ng B ooker C l ai m s Pendi n g R es ol ut i on of t he G over nm ent ’ s Pet i t i on for R ehea r i ng E n B anc i s deni ed.