NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0383n.06 No. 08-4342 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

United States of Am eric a, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. Marvin Miller, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO Revised Opin ion

BEF OR E: M e r r it t, G ibbo ns, and R og e r s, Ci r c uitJudg e s. MERRITT, C ircuit Judge. De fe nd ant, Ma rv in Mill e r, a

pp e a ls his c on vic tio n a s a

fe lon in possession of a fir ear

m under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ) and his sente nce pu rsuant to the Ar med Care er Cr imi na l A c t, 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( e ), wh ic h c arr ie s a mand a tor y min imum se nte nc e of

15 y e ars . A s to his c onviction, Miller claims the district c ourt err ed in r efusing to g ive him additional investigative funds pursuant to the C riminal J ustice Act beca use t he funds we re ne cessa ry to his defense and the failure to awar d them prejudic ed h i s case . Miller raises thre e issues conc erninghis sentence : (1) wh e the r t he g ov e rnme nt w a ive d o r oth e rw ise ne g a te d its rig ht to c on te nd that Mi lle r w a s su

bje c t to Se c tio n 9 24 (e ) b a se d o n it s f a ilure to r a ise the po ssi bil ity of the e nh anc e me nt e arl ie r i n th e pr oc e ss and ther eby

leadingMiller to believe he would be sente nced unde r the a dvisory g uidelines; (2) whether incre asing Miller’s sentenc e above the statutory maxi mum for conviction under the fe lonNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-2- in p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm c ha rg e ba se d o n h is pr ior

c on vic tio ns vio la te s A rt ic le I I Iand the Sixth Amendment to the United States Cons tituti on; and (3) whether the district court e rre d in counting Miller’s juvenile convic tion a s a predic ate offe nse for pur poses of the A rmed Car eer Criminal Act beca use it wa s “procedura lly

unsound” and, the ref

ore, in violation of Six th Circuit law. For the

re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. De fe nd ant, Marv in M ill e r, wa s c ha rg e d in a on e -c ount i nd ic tme nt w ithbe in g a fe lon in possession of a f

i re arm in vi olation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). The pa rties stipulated that Miller has previously

been c onvicted of a

crime punishable by

a term of imprisonment e x cee ding one y ear and t h at t h e f

i re ar m i d en t i fi edi nt h e i n d i ct m en th adp re v i o u s l y t ra v el edi ni n t er s t at e o r f o r ei gn

commerc e. De fenda

nt ag ree d to a benc h trial, which wa s held on April 30, 2008, and he w as found g uilty on May 5, 2008. The sole issue at trial was whe ther the g overnme nt could prove bey ond a re asonable doubt that defe ndant possessed the firea rm on or about September 7, 2007, during the execution of a se arc h

war rant at Be lla’s Gentleme n’s Club in Toledo, O hio. Be lla’s was known as a place wher e patr ons used drug s and ca

rried w ea p o n s . Two police of fice rs testified at tria l that they saw Miller on the patio with a pis tol and they saw him toss the pistol on or near a table umbre lla behind the patio door to t h e cl u b

. Def

endant wa s appre hended by police as he tried to climb over the c lub fenc e and

esca pe the r aid. Def

endant testified at the trial and maintaine d he did not have a g un at B ella’s that night a nd that the offic ers c ould not have see n him throw any thing beca

use the patio was unlit and they wer e looking though the slats in the fenc e. He also claims that he wa s fl eeing f rom the clubNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

18 U. S.C. § 9 24 (e ) p ro vid e s in re le va nt p art : 1 I n the ca se of a

person wh o v i o lates sec tion 922(g ) of this title and has three previous convict i o n s . . . for a violent felony

or a se rious drug offe nse, or both, . . . such pe rson shall b e . . . imprisoned not less than fiftee n y ear s . . . .
-3- owner , not the police. The district court found the office rs’ testim ony cre dible and found de fenda nt g u i l t y. After

trial, on J uly 11, 2008, a pre sentenc e investig ation repor t was complete d. The re port noted seve ral prior

convictions, including a 1990 juvenile c on v i ct i o n , an d it stated that defe ndant was “ potentially

subject” to sente ncing under the Armed Car eer Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which re quires that a defe ndant convicted of certain firear ms violations who has thre e prior “ violent felonies” be g iven a mandatory 15-y ear s en t en ce . Presentenc e Investig ation Report at ¶ 5. That

1 repo rt f o u n d th a t d e f e n d an t w a s s u

b je c t t o a g u id e li n e s e n te n c e o f

7 7

- 9 6 mo n th s . A s u

bsequent prese ntence investigation report filed on Aug ust 7, 2008, found t h at defe ndant qualified f or the Armed Car eer

Criminal Act enhanc emen t b ased on thre e prior violent f elony convictions, one of which wa s the juvenile adjudication in 1990 for a shooting when de fenda nt was 14. B oth parties fil ed multipl e sente ncing memoranda , and the district cour t held three sentenc ing he aring s in an eff ort to resolve whether the juvenile adjudication may provide one of the thre e re quired pre vious offe nses for pur

poses of the Armed Caree r C riminal Act. The district cour t ultim ately

found that the 1990 juvenile conviction qualifie d as one of the three require d “violent felonies” under the Act andNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-4- sentenc ed Miller to the mandatory 15-y ear sentenc e, almost doubling the g uideline-ra ng e sente nce. Miller appea led both his conviction and sentenc e. II. A. The District C ourt Did Not Abuse Its Discr etion When It Denied Addi tional In vestigator y F unds t o D e fend ant Def endant made an ora l motion at a pre-tr ial confe renc e on Apr il 22, 2008, eight da y s befor e the trial, for

addit i o n al funds to hire a private inve stigator to locate a nd interview one or two ey ewitnesses w ho had bee n at Bella’s Gentlemen’s Cl ub the ni g ht of t he shoot ing, one of whom had told police he sawdefe ndant with a g un t h at n i gh t . The ne x t day , defe ndant re newe d the motion. The district c ourt denied the motion ora lly at the April 22, 2008, hear ing, and in a written order dated April 30, 2008. United States v. Miller , No. 3:07-CR-569 (N.D. O hio Apr. 30, 2008) ( R.42). This Court has directe d the district courts to authorize ser v i ce s u n d er the Criminal J ustice Ac t, 1 8 U .S. C. § 30 06 A, “ up on a de mon str a tio n th a t ( 1) su c h s e rv ic es are n e c e ssa ry to m ount a plausible defe nse, and (2 ) wi thout such authorization, the defe ndant' s case would be pre judiced.” United States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398, 406 ( 6th Cir. 2002). Thi s court re views a district c ourt’s denial of a

uthorization for abuse of

discretion. Id

. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ha d p re vio us ly g ra

nte d de fe nd ant up to $50 0 for inv e sti g a tiv e se rv ic e s to aid in his defense

. Counsel e x plained that the additional reque st w as made be cause she fe are d that the witness might g ive her a diffe rent stateme nt than he g ave the police, ther eby nece ssitating that sh e be c ome a

fa c t wi tne ss i n o rd e r t o im pe a c h th e e y e wi tne ss a

nd je op ard izin g he r a

bil ity to

re pr e se nt M ill e r. Th e distr ic t c ourt de nie d th e re qu e st b e c a

us e c ouns e l di d n ot m a ke an a de qu a teNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-5- sh ow ingof

wh y sh e c ou ld not c on du c t the int e rv ie ws he rs e lf and fi nd fe a sib le wa y s to ke e p h e rs e lf fr om a lso be inga

tr ia l w itn e ss, so the a dd iti on a l fun ds we re no t “ne c e ssa ry” and de fe nd ant w ou ld not be pre judiced by

proce eding to trial without hiring an inve stigator. Tra nscript of Pre- trial Conf. at 8, United States v. Miller , No. 3:07CR569 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2008)

. We find the re asons stated by the di strict court for denying the reque st for additional funds rea sonable a nd, there fore , find the district court did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing the motion. B. A dva nc e No ti c e to De fend antof t he P os sibi lit y o f a Sen ten cin g Enh anc e m e nt Und e r th e Arm ed Care er C rim inal Act Is Not Re qui red Turning to his sentencing challeng es, defe ndant first contends that the g overnme nt “waive d” its right to subject him to the Armed Ca ree r Criminal Act enha

ncemen t u n d er 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) beca use the g overnme nt did not raise the possibility at def endant’ s indictment, arra ignme nt o r at trial. Duringthis ti me, t h e go v ernment relied on the statute a nd g uideline ra

ng e to deter

mine Mil le r’ s li ke ly

se nte nc e fo r a

vio la tio n o f t

he fe lon -i n- po sse ssi on -o f- a -f ir e arm statut e , w hic h h a s a mandatory maxi mum of 10 y ear s. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) . At the ar raig nment, the g overnme nt attorney said, “I have c alculate d, obviously as a preliminary matter , an ap p ro x i m at e a d v i s o ry gu i d el i n e r an ge of 63-78 months.” Transc ript of Arr aig nment at 4, United States v. Miller , No. 3:07CR569 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2007) (R.8) ( emphasis adde d). The f irst actual notice to defe ndant ra i s ing the possibili ty

of applying the enhanc ement came on J uly 11, 2008, two months after c onclusion of the trial, in the Presente nce I

nvestig ation Report. That doc ument stated that I t sh ou ld b e no te d th a t ba se d o n th e de fe nd ant’ s th re e pr e vio us c on vic tio ns , h e is potentially

subject to the enha

nced se ntencingprovisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), wh ic h r e qu ir e s a man dator y 15 -y e ar se nte nc e . How e ve r, the g ov e rnme nt d id n ot f ile a notice of

its int ention to pursue an e nhance d sentenc e in this case.No. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-6- I nitial Presentence I nvestig ation Report at ¶ 5, f iled J uly 11, 2008. The gove rnment di d not file any objections to this P rese ntence I nvestig ation Report. A revised prese ntence investigation r eport wa s filed on August 7, 2008, and included the Sec tion 924(e) e nhance ment as a se ntencingoption: I t should, howeve r, be noted t hat t he first disclosed pr esente nce inve stigation report completed by

this officer

and date d J u l y

11, 2008, did not include the mandator y minimum 15 y ear

imprisonment se ntence
. The first disclosed re port did, howeve r, include a disc laimer pa

rag raph five whic h acknow ledg ed the de fenda nt’s three pre v io u s violent felony

convictions and the pote ntial enhanc ed sente ncing provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), w hich requires the mandatory 15-y ear custody sentenc e. A ref ere nce w as made that the g overnme nt did not file a notice of intent to pursue the enhanc ed sente nce. U

pon further

ref lection of both fe dera l statute [s ic] and U.S.S.G. § 4 B 1. 4, Ar

me d Ca re e r O ff e nd e r, the se nte nc ing pr ov isi on is a uto ma tic and

the re is no need f or t he g overnme nt to file a notice of its int ention to pursue an e nhance d se nte nc e in t

his c a se . T he re fo re , th e mand a tor y min imum is re qu ir e d b y bo th s ta tut e and g uid e lin e s se nte nc ingpr ov isi on s. Presentenc e Investig ation Report ¶ 85, filed Aug . 7, 2008. This para g raph in the r evised pre sentenc e investig ation repor t is a corr ect state ment of the law; the re is no re qu ir e me nt that noti c e be g ive n to th e de fe nd ant a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

is required by the pla in langua g e of the statut e to i mpo se the mand a tor y se nte nc e wh e re a

pp lic a ble re g a rd le ss of whether the g overnme nt has reque sted the enha nceme nt. We have pre viously held that “[f]ormal notice is not require d [t o impose the m andatory minimum sentenc e] under the Ar med Care er Cr im in a l A ct.” United States v. Mc Govne y , 270 Fe d. App’x 386, 387 (6th Ci r. 2008). The g overnme nt’s failure to provide written notice of its intent to reque st a sentenc e under Section 924(e) does not violate the de fenda nt’s constitutional rights. Un ite d S tat es v . M

au ldi n , 109 F.3d 1159, 1162-63 (6th Cir. 1997) (g overnme nt does not n ee d t o n o t i fy a def endant of its int ent to seek a

n enhanc ement under Section 924(e) ). In Ma uld in , the g overnme nt ha d listed one of the def endant’ sNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-7- pri or s tate c on vic tio ns a s havin g a ma ximum punis hme nt of six y e ars , the re by no t qu a lif y ing a s a predic ate offense for Section 924(e)

. The gove rnment later provided infor

mation to the sentencing court that the conviction actua lly car ried a maxi mum sentence of 12 y ear s and, there fore , qualified de fe nd ant f

or the Se c tio n 9 24 (e ) e nh anc e me nt. Th e de fe nd ant a rgue d th a t th e g ov e rnme nt s ho uld be bound by

its prior notice that defe ndant did not qualify for the e nhance ment. We disag ree d and he ld t hat de fe nd ant w a s su

bje c t to the e nh anc e me nt de sp ite the c ha ng e d p os iti on

of the g ov e rnme nt. Id . at 1163. I nd e e d, the se nte nc ingc ourt mus t im po se the e nh anc e me nt su a s po ntewithout a reque st by the g overnme nt where applicable

. See U nited States v. Johnson , 973 F.2d 857, 860 ( 10th Cir. 1992)

. This holding is based upon the “shall impose” l ang uag e in Section 924(e) (1) a nd the fa ct that “the statute clea

rly indicates that the intent of Cong ress wa s t o require mandator y enhanc ement [and] sh ou ld a uto ma tic a lly

be a pp lie d by the c ourt s re g a

rd le ss o f w he the r t

he Go ve rnme nt a ff

ir ma tiv e ly seeks suc h enhanc ement.” Un ite d S tat es v . Co bia , 41 F.3d 1473, 1475 ( 11th Cir. 1995). The de fenda

nt conce ded this point in hi s brief but c ont en d s , i n what is essentially an equitable e stoppel argument, that it is unfair to de fenda nt to go throug h the entire pre- trial and trial proce eding s believing he will re ce i ve a guideline-ra ng e sente nce f

or his conviction under

Section 922(g ) only

to find out during the sentenc ing proce ss that he is likely fac ing a mandator y minimum sent en ce o f 15 y ear s. Howeve r, as a cknowledg ed by defe ndant, there is no require ment that the g overnme nt raise the possibility of the e nhance ment ear ly in the proce eding or any t h i n g that pr oh ibi ts the g ov e rnme nt f ro m c ha ng ingits po sit ion

on se nte nc ingup to t

he tim e of se nte nc ing . A ll that due proc ess re quires is that a de fenda nt have acc ess t o a record of his prior convictions and a nNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-8- opportunity to c halleng e them befor e beingsentenc ed. See M auldin, 109 F.3d at 1162-63. Here, the de fe nd ant ha d ac tua l noti c e a lmo st thr e e mon ths pr ior to his se nte nc inghe ari ng– at th e ve ry la te st

– in c ompliance with the require ments of proc edura l due proc ess. Se e Oy le r v . B ole s, 368 U.S. 448, 452 (1962) (“[A] de fenda nt must rec eive rea sonable notice and an oppor tunity to be hea rd re lative to [ a] recidivist char g e even i f due proce ss does not require that notice be g iven prior to the tria l on the substantive offe nse.”) . Nothing in the r ecor d indicates that de fenda nt w as treated “unfa irly ” by not knowing e arlier

in the proce ss that he might be subject to the sentenc ing e nhance ment under the Armed Car eer

Criminal Act. C. The Appl ication of S ect ion 924(e) in this Case Does NotViolate Ar ticle III or t he Sixth Am endm ent to t he United States Constitution Miller contends that be cause the district court c oncluded that he had thr e e p r e v io u s q u a li f y ing

c on vic tio ns tha

t su bje c te d h im to an enha

nc e d sen te nc e un de r 18 U. S.C. § 924 (e ), the c ha rg e sh ou ld have be e n in

the ind ic tme nt a

nd pr ov e n b e y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t by th e fa c t- fi nd e r at tr ia l. Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466, 492 (2000). Apprendi excepts the fac t of a prior conviction, which may be found by a judge at sentenc ing by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e base d on Almendarez- Torres v. United States , 5 2 3 U.S. 224 (1 99 8)

. Th e Sup re me Court ha s a ff ir me d th a t Almendarez- Torres is still g ood law af ter Apprendi

. Shepard v. U

nited States, 54 4 U .S. 13 , 2 4 ( 20 05 ); United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005); Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004). The Six th Circuit has also reje cted the a rg ument put f orth by Miller here

. Se e, e .g ., Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin , 526 F.3d 926, 941- 42 (6th Cir. 2008). Mil le r c on c e de s in

his op e nin g br ie f t

hat th e law i s a g a inst him on thi s is su e . Unti l th e Sup re meNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-9- Cou rt ov e rtu r

n s i t s p r e v i o u s h o l d i n g s o nt h i s i s s u e , M i l l e r ’ s c h a l l e n g e i s w i t h o u tm e r i t
. W h i le defe ndant hi nts that the S upreme Court’s rec ent dec ision in Sh e pa rd casts doubt on the continuing validity of Almendarez- Torres a s pre c e de nt, he c on c e de s th a t un le ss t he Sup re me Court

e xplic itl y

ov e rr ule s Almendarez- Torres , it wi ll c on tin

ue to b e fo llo we d b y

thi s Co ur t D. Juvenile Convictions May Serve as P redicat e Off enses Under the A rm ed Care er C rim inal Act Def

endant’ s final issue on appeal i s a due pr ocess c halleng e to the district cour t’s finding that a 1990 juvenile c onviction wher e the then-14-y ear -old Miller pled g uilty to felonious assault using a fire arm qua lifies as one of the nec essar

y three violent prior convictions to e nhance a sente nce unde r the Arme d Caree r Criminal Act. Miller does not dis p ute the existence of the juvenile conviction, but c laims the nece ssary proce dural safe g uards wer e not in place in his proce eding and it did n ot comport with due proc ess and, ther efor e, ca nnot be used a s a qualify

ing pr edicate offe nse. Once a district cour

t finds by a pre pondera

nce of the evidence that a defe ndant has c ommitt ed at least three prior violent felonies, the defe ndant must be sentenc ed pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 924(e)

. The Ac t mandates a

15-y ear minimum sentenc e for

cer tain fede ral fir ear

ms vio lations where the defe ndant has thre e prior c onvictions, in state or fede ral c ourt, for a “violent fe lony .” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e )( 1) . A“ vio le nt f

e lony ” is d e fi ne d a s: (B ) . . . any

crime punishable by imprisonment for a ter m exceeding one y ear , or an act of juvenile de linquency inv olving the use or carry ing of a fir earm, k nife, or de str uc tiv e de v ic e tha t wo uld be pu nis ha bleby

im pr iso nm e nt fo r such te rm if committed by

an adult, that -- (I ) has a s an ele ment the use, attempted use, o r t h re at ened use of phy sical for ce a g ainst the person of another ; orNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-10- (C) The te rm “convic tion” includes a finding that a per son has committed an ac t of j u v e n i l e d e l i n qu e n c y i n v o l v i n g a v i o l e n tf e l o n y. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2) (empha sis added). I t s h o u l d f

i r s t b e n o t e d t h a t t h e l an g u a g e o f t h e s t a tu t e p l a i n l y s t a t e s t h a t a c on vic tio n in juvenile proceeding s may count t owar d the prior three violent fe lonies nece ssary to impose the 15- y ear mandatory

sentenc e pursua

nt to the Armed Caree r Criminal Act, so any challeng e simply

to the fac t of use of a

juvenile conviction ca

nnot stand. Conceding this point due to the plain lang uag e of the statute, defe ndant claims that his 1990 adjudication was not “ proce durally sound” as re quired by Six th Circuit law befor e it may serve as a pr edicate o ff en s e fo r purposes of the Armed Car eer Cr imi na l A c t. This Court directly

addre ssed the use of

juveni l e proce eding s as pre dicates to impose the mandatory

15-y ear sentenc e under

Section 924(e) in Un ite d Sta te s v . Cr owe ll , 493 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2007). Cro we ll expli citly held that the use of “proc edura lly

sound” juvenile a djudications as Arme d Caree r Criminal Act pre dicat es d o es not violate due proc ess. Id . at 750. I n Cro we ll , th e juv e nil e defe ndant conteste d the use of a juvenile conviction for purposes of Section 924(e) , arguing that the convi ct i o n n ever occ urre d, or, if it did, that its use violated due proc ess and the Supre me Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Id . at 748-4 9

. I n response , the g overnme nt provided written pr oof of Crowell’s juvenile record and the t estimony of t he dete ctive who prosec uted the juvenile c harg e. Id

. I n upholding the use of the juvenile a djudication, Cro we ll fo un d n o in di cat ion th a t th e de fe nd ant w a s n ot a ff or de d a pp ro pr ia te du e pr oc e ss i n h is j uv e nil e adjudication. Id . at 750-51.No. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-11- Cro we ll h o ld s th a t “ th e u s e o f a p r o c e d u r a ll y s o u n d juv e n il e a d

ju d ic a ti o na s [anA rmed Caree r Criminal Act] predicate does not vio l at e d u e process,” e ven thoug h juvenile adjudications

are not affor ded the full panoply of proce dural rig hts pr ovided in an adve rsar ial adult adjudication. Id . at 75 0. Ra the r tha

n de mand that juve nil e a dju dic a tio ns me e t a “c on sti tut ion a l che c kli st” of ri g hts in or der to count as a pr edicate under Section 924(e) , Cro we ll ins tr uc ts jud g e s to “c on sid e r t

he re a lity of the a ctual juvenile a djudication to determine w hether it is sufficiently reliable so as to not of fend constitutional rights . . . .” Id . (interna l citations omit ted). Miller points to several e x amples fr om his adjudication to demonstrate that it was not “proc edura lly

sound”: he did not know he had a defe nse attorney and thought that his attorney was a dete ctive at the time a

nd neither he nor hi s mother or g randmother met with an attorne y

befor e the p ro ce ed i n g; n eit her his mother nor his gr andmother w aived a ny of his rig hts, as would have be en pr op e r f or a juv e nil e ; he wa s c ha

rg e d a nd ple d gui lt y

on the same da

y ; he wa s q

ue sti on e d b y

his attorne y ( w h o h e th o u g h t w a s a

d e te c ti v e ) in s te a d

o f b y th e p r e s id in g o f

f ic e r , a juv e n il e c o urt mag istrate; he did not have eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel and he did not know then that by pleading g uilty to the felonious assault he mig ht someday be subjec t to the Armed Car eer Criminal Act. Due to the confusion surrounding the 1990 adjudication, the district c ourt conduc ted three separ ate se ntencinghear ings on the matter be tween Aug ust a nd October 2008. At the September 30, 2008, sentenc ing hear ing, the defe ndant called as a witness Martin Mohler, a lawy er w ho repr esente d j u v e n i l e s e xt e n s i v e l y i n t h e O h i o c o u rt s d u r i n g t h e 1 9 9 0 s . M r . M o h l e r w a s n o t M i l l e r’ s d e fe ns e lawy er in the 1990 juve nile adjudication and w as ca lled as an “expert witness” of sorts. Mr. Mohler testified that it was unusual for the def ense la wy er, instea d of the pre siding off icial, to conduct theNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-12- questioning of

the j uvenile in the juvenile proc eedingas happe ned in Miller’s juvenile a djudication. Transc ript of SentencingHea ring at 44-45, United States v. Miller , N o. 3:0 7- CR- 56 9 (N.D. Oh io Se pt. 30 , 2 00 8) (R .5 9) . M oh le r a lso e xpre sse d c on c e rn that Mi lle r d id n ot r e c a ll m e e tin g wi th h is attorney befor e he ple d g uilty

to the shooting, id . at 45, and that the tr anscr ipt did not reflect that Miller’s mother or g randmother waived Miller’ s rig hts. Id. at 49. Howeve r, Mohl er did testify that there w a s n o th in g in th e “ b ar e tr an s c r ip t” o f th e p r o c e e d in g th a t r e f le c ts th a t M il le r did not understand w hat he wa s doing or that he did not otherwise g ive a knowing and voluntary g uilty plea. Id . at 48. Ba sed on the testimony

of Mohler at the September 30 sentenc ing hear ing and the sentenc ing memoranda

submitt ed by

the par ties, the district court judg e held a nother sente ncing hear ing on October 2, 2008. This hear ing ca n o n l y b e described a s an almost full evidentiary hear ing

surr ound ingMil le r’ s 19 90 juv e nil e a dju dic a tio n. Th e do c ke t sh e e t and tr ans c ri pt f

ro m th e juv e nil e pr oc e e d i n g w e r e i n t r o d

u c e d a s e v i d e n c e , an d

a l l t h e i n d i v i d

u a l s w h o t o o k

p arti nt h e j u v e n i le proce eding in 1990 were available to testify : M i l l er ’s attorney in the 1990 juvenile adjudication, Richard B lake; the juvenile c ourt mag istrate who pr esided over the 1990 proc eeding , J ohn Yer man; the Lucas County , Ohio, prosec utor for the 1990 juvenile p ro ce eding, J ennife r B ainbridg e; and Miller’s mother a

nd his gr andmother. See Transc ript of SentencingHea ri n g , N o . 3 :0 7

- CR

- 5 69 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2008) (R.60). All witnesses were ex amined and cross-e x amined by counsel, a

nd the district court judg e also interje cted with many questions during the hea

ring

. Yer man testified that as the juvenile cour t mag istrate pr es i d i ng over Miller’ s 1990 adjudication, “I have no doubt that [Mi ller] was afforde d due proc ess . . . in 1990.” Id. at 8. Yer manNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-13- also testified that it was his prac tice to discuss the matter w ith any one pre sent during the proc eeding who could shed light on the s ituation, and he did talk to Miller’s mother a nd g randmother

at the time. He sa id t hat in 19 90 he ha d “ a t le a st a

on e - o r t wo -y e a r a sso c ia tio n with M r. Mil le r [a llu din g to Miller’s pre vious run-ins with the juven i l e court sy stem], and I ’ve ta lked to his mother and g ra ndmot he r b e fo re re g ard ingthe se thi ng s. Ijus t do n’ t r e me mbe r w ithpa rt ic ula ri ty thi s

conver sation.” Id. at 9. The district c ourt judg e aske d Yer man if it was “unusual” for ther e to be a ple a wi thi n a da

y or tw o o f a

juv e nil e arr e st i n a

se ri ou s c ha

rg e su c h a s th e on e Mil le r w a s f a c ingin 1 9 9 0

. Y e r

m an e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e r u l e s r e qu i r e a h e ar i n g an d a d j u d i c a t i o nw i t h i n1 0 d a ys

o f ar re s t. Id

. a t 1 1

. H e te s ti f ie d th a t it w o u ld n o t b e u n u s u a l f o r a juv e n il e d e f

e n d ant who was familiar with the c riminal justice sy stem (as Miller unfor tunately was, e ven at ag e 14) to be char g ed and adjudicated on the same day , even f or a se rious char g e. Id

. J ennife r B ainbridg e, who prosec uted Miller in 1990, testified that Miller’s adjudication for the shooting w ent “just how most of the proc eedi n gs occur red at the time.” Id. a t 14 . Sh e a lso te s ti f ie d , in r e s p o n s e to a

qu e s ti o nf

r o m t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt j u d g e , th a t i t w a s n o t u n c o mm o nf

o r the defe nse attorne y , instead of the pr esiding office r, to question the juvenile under oath. Id

. Richard B lake, Miller’ s defe nse attorney for the juvenile adjudication in 1990, also testified. He state d that he did not have much independe nt rec ollection of t he actual proceeding but that the documents and transcr ipt f rom the proce eding helped to r efr esh his me mory somewhat. He testified that he did re member that Miller’s m other a nd g randmother

wer e ver y interested in him and he does

reme m b er h av i n g discussions with them outs ide of the he aring , which he sa id was also his usual prac tice with juveniles. When asked by the cour t if there “wa s any doubt in his mind at that time thatNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-14- [Mill e r] und e rs to od the pu rp os e of tho se pr oc e e din g s, ” he ans we re d, “ the re wo uld be no do ub t in my mind that [ Miller understood] what we w ere up to at that time.” Id . at 19. Af te r h e ari ngte sti mony

fr om t he wi tne ss es, th e dis tr ic t c ourt ru le d th a t th e juv e nil e adjudication fr om 1990 “satisfies the leg al requirements” for t hat adjudication to be used as one of the three p re d i ca t e o ff

enses unde r the Ar

med Care er Criminal Ac t. He noted that the tr anscr ipt ref lects that t he mot her and g randmother wer e pre sent at the a djudication and that, ac cordingto the witness testimony

at t he 2008 hear ing, they

would have ha d the opportunity to speak. The defe ndant

a lso sp ok e on

his ow n b e ha lf

a t th e juv e nil e a dju dic a tio n, re sp on de d to que sti on s b y the ma g istrate and his attorney , and indicate d that he knew what was happening

. The district c ourt also did not f ind

cre dible, based on the transcr ipt of the 1990 adjudication and the testimony in 2008 by

the per sons involved in 1990, defe ndant’s stateme nt that he thoug ht his attorney was a detec tive. The district cour

t sentence d Miller to the mandatory minimum 15-y ear

sentenc e under

the Armed Car eer

Criminal Act. I n handing down the sente nce, the district court point ed to a number of fa ctors supporting the 15-y ear sentenc e. The judge noted the mandatory lang uag e of the Armed Caree r Criminal statute, but also noted C o n gre s s ’ intent to punish recidivism where firea rms are

us e d, inc lud ing the pla in langua g e of the Ac t in str

uc tin g se nte nc ingc ourt s to c ount s e ri ou s juve nil e of fe ns e s a s q

ua lif y ingpr e dic a te of

fe ns e s. Th e di st ri ct court a lso re mark e d at se ve ra l po int s de fe nd ant’ s f

a ilure to s tay

ou t of tr ou ble , e ve n af

te r his juv e nil e c on vic tio ns . T he jud g e po int e d to defe ndant’s violent cr iminal hist ory , including three previous convictions for f elonious assault and voluntary manslaug hter and attempted felonious assault, as well as se vera l probation violations. TheNo. 08-4342

United States v. Miller

-15- district court j u d ge also took into acc ount the fac t that defe ndant was 32 y ear s old and had no verifia ble employ

ment and no history

of a stable job. We ag ree with the district court that the 1990 juvenile procee ding suf ficiently comported wi th d ue pr oc e ss t o c ount a s a

pr e dic a te of

fe ns e fo r p ur

po ses of the Ar me d Ca re e r C ri min a l A c t. The 2008 sente ncing hear ings conducted by the di strict court in this case included testimony from

near ly ever

y individual who took pa rt in the 1990 adjudication of defe ndant. The t es t i m o ny de mon str a te s th a t de fe nd ant w a s r e pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l, u

nd e rs too d th e natur e of the pr oc e e din g s, and had c ontact with his mother and g randmother during the proc ess. Acc ording ly , for the r easons

se t f or th a bo ve , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.