2008 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 9-9-2008 

# U SA v . E well P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3025

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . E well " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 555. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/555NOT P 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 C as e N o: 07- 3025 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CA RLTO N EW ELL, A ppel l ant C as e N o: 07- 3095 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J A C O B S . A D A M S , J R ., A ppel l ant O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey D istri ct C o u rtN o s. 0 0 -C R -69 7 -1; 0 0 -C R -69 7 -2 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr. Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember9, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , M C K E E , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges Fi l ed: Sept ember9, 2008 OP I NI ONT h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . T h is C o u rt 1 p o s s e s s e s ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 -28 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e la w . 2 G i bb s v. C ross , 1 6 0 F . 3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 2 S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l ant s C ar l t on E w el l ( “Ew el l ”) and J acob A dams ( “A dams”) , al ong w i th an a c c o mp l i c e , r o b b e d f

o u rb a n k s b e twe e n Oc t o b e ro f 1 9 9 5 a n d Oc t o b e ro f

1 9 9 6 . On N ovember27, 2002, a j uryfound Ew el l gui l tyof fourcount s of bank r obbery , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2113, and fourcount s of us e of a fi r earm dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a cr i m e of vi ol ence , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . T he j uryfound A dams gui l tyof thr ee c ount s of the s ame t w o cr i m es . O n A pr i l 7, 2003, the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d E w el l t o 910 m onths of i ncar cer at i on and s ent ence d A dams t o 610 m onths of in c a rc e ra tio n . O n Ju ly1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , this C o u rt a f f irm e d b o th c o n v ictio n s a n d re m a n d e d th e ir cas es t o the D i s tr i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng pur s uantt o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 54 3 U. S. 220 ( 2005) . O n J une 29, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed a s ent enci ng hear i ng and se n ten c e d E w e ll an d A d a m s to th e sa m e ter m s o f in c a rc e ra tio n h e h a d p re v io u sly i m pos ed. T hes e t i m el yappea l s fol l ow ed. 1 O n appea l , both E w el l and A dams ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of the appl i cabl e s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um s ent ence w as uncons t i tut i onal beca us e the much sh o rt er se n tenc e c o n tem p lat ed b ythe S en tenc ing G u idelines , ab sen t th e statuto ry m in im u m , w a s s u f

f icie n t to m e e t th e se n ten c in g g o a ls o f 1 8 U .S .C . 3 5 5 3 (a ). B o th 23

A p p ell an ts co n ce d e tha t th is C o u rth as u p h eld th e c o n sti tuti o n ali tyo f m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence s i n U ni t ed Stat es v. MacEw an , 445 F. 3d 237 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 4 7 3 F .3 d 7 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). N o n e th e les s, th e yc o n ten d th a t th is C our ts houl d r ever s e cour s e bec aus e the under l y i ng evi dence the governm ents ubm i t t ed at trial to p ro v e th e yu se d a g u n d u rin g th e ir b a n k ro b b e rie s is su sp e c t. S u c h a n a rg u m e n t is i m m at er i al t o t he purpos es of s ent enci ng and s houl d have be en r ai s ed as a s uffi ci ency chal l enge t o t he A ppel l ant s ’ convi ct i ons . A s s uch, ourdeci s i ons i n M acEw an and W

alker f o re c lo s e th is a rg u m e n t. E w e ll also a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p lain e rro r b yf a ili n g to c o n sid e r e v id e n c e o f

h is p o st-c o n v ictio n re h a b ili tatio n . P u rsu a n t to o u r d e c isio n in U ni t ed Stat es v. Ll oyd , 4 6 9 F .3 d 3 1 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), d istric t co u rts p o ss e ss th e a u th o rity t o r ej ectcons i der at i on of pos t - s ent enci ng r ehabi l i t at i on. I ndeed, E w el l ’ s att orney ad m itted a s m u ch at resen tenc ing , n o ti n g that itw as “ p erm issi b le” f o r th e D istri ct C o u rt t o choos e t o i gnor e Ew el l ’ s pos t - convi ct i on r ehabi l i t at i on. G i ven s uch an a dm i s s i on, t he d o c tr in e o f

in v ite d e rr o r m a yv e ry w e ll f o re c lo s e E w e ll f

ro m ra is in g th is c la im o n a p p e a l. R e g a rd les s, E w e ll’s a rg u m e n t f a ils b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e f u sa l to c o n sid e r h is pos t - convi ct i on r ehabi l i t at i on eff or t s w as noterr or , pl ai n orotherw i s e, gi ven ourdeci s i on i n Ll oyd . Fi nal l y , A dams ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pl ai n err orbys ent enci ng hi m “t o tw o 20 y earcons ecut i ve s ent ence s for[§] 924( c) vi ol at i ons , w i thouthavi ng t he4

j urydet erm i ne thatthe convi ct i ons i n count s 4 and 8 cons t i tut ed s econd ors ubs equent con vict i on s. ” A s the g ov ernm ent not es, A dam s’ cl ai m “i s r eal l ythat the fa ctof h i s fi rs t convi ct i on unders ect i on 924( c) - i . e. , a pr i orconvi ct i on- w as us ed t o enhanc e hi s s ent ence forhi s s ubs equentconvi ct i ons unders ect i on 924( c) . ” I n Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , the Supr eme C our thel d thatthe fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on need notbe s u b m itte d to a ju ry a n d e s ta b lis h e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id . a t 4 9 0 . S im ilarly , in D eal v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 8 U .S . 1 2 9 (1 9 9 3 ), th e C o u rt h e ld th a t w h e re a d e f e n d a n t is c o n v icte d o f

m u lti p le s e c tio n 9 2 4 (c ) v io latio n s a t a s in g le tria l, th e c o u rt sh o u ld p ro p e rly tr eatthe fi r s tconvi ct i on as a pr i orconvi ct i on— and anyotherconvi ct i ons as s ubs equent c o n v ic tio n s — f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g . Id . at13 7. In l i gh tof suc h au tho ri ty , A dam s’ argum ent fai l s. In s u m , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t e rr in s e n te n c in g A p p e lla n ts E w e ll a n d A d a m s . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m b o th ju d g m e n ts o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .