2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-14-2002

USA v. Matos

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-3279

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

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 2002 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. Matos" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 363.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/363
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 01-3279 

 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

 v. 

 JAMES VINCENT MATOS, 

 Appellant 

 _______________________________________________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00470 

 (Honorable Jan E. DuBois) 

 ___________________ 

 Argued April 22, 2002 

 Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and NOONAN*, Circuit Judges 

 (Filed: June 14, 2002) 

 

 *The Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth 

Judicial Circuit, sitting by designation. 

ELIZABETH T. HEY, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) 

ROBERT EPSTEIN, ESQUIRE 

Defender Association of Philadelphia 

Federal Court Division 

Curtis Center, Independence Square West 

Suite 540 West 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 

 Attorneys for Appellant 

CRAIG D. MARGOLIS, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) 

Office of United States Attorney 

615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 

 Attorney for Appellee 
 

 OPINION OF THE COURT 

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge. 

 James Matos appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence. Citing 

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Matos contends the sentencing guidelines’ 

career offender adjustment is inapplicable unless the elements of the adjustment were 

pleaded in the information and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We will 

affirm. I 

 After his arrest for robbing two federally insured banks in Pennsylvania, Matos 

pled guilty to two counts of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. 2113(a)). Matos faced a maximum 

prison sentence of twenty years on each count. See 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). The information 

did not cite the prior convictions. At sentencing, the District Court found that Matos was 

a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 because (1) bank robbery constituted a 

"crime of violence" as defined in U.S.S.G. 4B1.2; (2) his criminal record included at 

least two prior convictions for crimes of violence; and (3) he was 18 or older at the time 

he committed the instant offense. As a "career offender," Matos’ offense level was set at 

32 because under 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) the maximum sentence for bank robbery is 20 years. 

U.S.S.G. 4B1.1. Matos’ receipt of an acceptance of responsibility credit reduced his 

offense level to 29. The "career offender" guideline specified a criminal history category 

of VI, resulting in a guideline sentencing range of 151-188 months. After departing 

downward based on Matos’ extraordinary post-offense rehabilitation, the District Court 

imposed a sentence of 120 months imprisonment on both counts, to run consecutively. 

 Matos contends his prior convictions and status as a career offender should have 

been charged in the information and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury because 

they were used to increase his sentence range. But when a sentence is imposed below the 

statutory maximum, it is not constitutionally objectionable under Apprendi. United 

States v. Williams, 235 F.3d 858, 863 (3d Cir.), cert denied, 122 S.Ct. 49 (2001). As 

noted, Matos was sentenced to 120 months, well under the original statutory maximum 

of twenty years on each count (18 U.S.C. 2113(a)). Therefore, Matos’ "career 

offender" status did not result in a sentence beyond the statutory maximum. Williams, 

235 F.3d at 863; see also United States v. Pressler, 256 F.3d 144, 159 (3d Cir.), cert. 

denied, 122 S. Ct. 503 (2001). 

 II. 

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

sentence. 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing opinion. 

 /s/ Anthony J. Scirica 

 Circuit Judge 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 01-3279 

 ___________ 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

 v. 

 JAMES VINCENT MATOS, 

 Appellant 

 _______________________________________________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00470 

 (Honorable Jan E. DuBois) 

 ___________________ 

 Argued April 22, 2002 

 Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and NOONAN*, Circuit Judges 

 JUDGMENT 

 This cause came to be heard on the record from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was argued by counsel on April 22, 

2002. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby 

 

 *The Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth 

Judicial Circuit, sitting by designation. 

 ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgment of the 

District Court entered August 13, 2001, be, and the same is hereby affirmed. All of the 

above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. 

 ATTEST: 

 Clerk 

DATED: 14 June 2002 June 13, 2002 

TO: Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk 

FROM: Judge Scirica 

RE: United States v. James Vincent Matos 

 No. 01-3279 

 Argued: April 22, 2002 

Dear Marcy: 

 Please file the attached not precedential opinion which has been cleared in 
accordance with our procedure. The signed original is being delivered to your office. 

 Sincerely, 

 Anthony J. Scirica 

AJS/sss 

cc (letter only): Judge Rendell 

 Judge Noona