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 1-6-2005 

# U S A v . Ab du s -S h ak

ur P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2248

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work 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 . Abdus -S h ak

ur " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1572. 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_2005/1572* Honorable Louis H. Pol lak. Senior Dist rict Judge for t

he United States Dist

rict Co urt o f the Ea stern Dis trict o f Pe nns ylvan ia, sittin g by d esig natio n. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL

UNITED STA TES COUR T OF APPEA LS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

__________ No. 04-2248

__________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. JELAN I KAM AU A BDU S-SHAK UR, Appellant

__________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. No. 04-CR-00045) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Robert B. Kugler

_________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 17, 2004

_________ Be for e: N YG AA RD and GA RT H, Circu it Judges
.

an d POL LAK, * Distri ct Judge
. (Fil ed January6, 2005)

________ OPI NION

________2 The full titl e of the gui deline secti on is “Larc eny, Embezzlement, Other Forms of

Theft; Offenses Involvi ng Stolen Pr operty ; Property Damage or Destruction; Fr aud and Deceit; Forgery ; Offenses I nvolving Altered or Counte rfeit Instr uments Other t

han Co unt erfe it Be arer Ob ligat ion s of the U nited Sta tes.” 2 PO LL AK , Distri ct Judge :
JelaniKamau Abdus-Shakur pled guil ty to forgi ng a dist rict court or der compelli ng the Bureau of Prisons ( BOP) to recognize his name change, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. § 5 05 an d 2. T he D istrict Co urt sen tence d him to 21 mo nths in prison in
acco rdan ce w ith U .S.S.G . § 2J1 .2, Ob struction of Ju stice. A bdu s-Sh akur appe als his senten ce, arg uing that this g uidelin e is no t appro priate a nd th at the D istrict Co urt sho uld have sente nced him under U.S. S.G. §1B1.2(a ), Fr aud. 2 W e w ill aff irm. W e ha ve ju risdi ction to h ear th is ap pea l un der 28 U .S.C . § 12 91 a nd 1 8 U .S.C . § 3742(a)( 1). Our re view of the di stri ct court 's i nterpretation of the Sentenci ng Guideline s is ple nar y. United States v. Thomas, 327 F.3d 253, 255 ( 3d Cir. 2003) . Determi nations of fac t are r evie we d fo r clea r erro r. Id . In addi tion, we “‘give due deference to the dis tri ct court's application of the guidelines to the f acts.’” Id . ( quoting 18 U .S.C. §§ 37 42(e)).

I. In March 2001, appel lant received a fi nal judgment from the Superi or Court of Cumberland County authori zing him t o change his name from Chance Venable to Jel ani3

Kamau Abdus-Shakur. On October 11, 2002, while serving a pri or federalsentence , Abdus-Shakur fil ed a motion t o vacate hi s sente nce pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That acti on, ass igned to J udge Willi am H. Walls, was mis takenl y capt ioned Chance Venable v. United Stat

es of America . Appell ant subse quently file d a motion and pr oposed order requ esting th at the D istrict Co urt: (1) ac kno wled ge his nam e cha nge, (2 ) orde r the B OP to do the same, and (3) amend exi sti ng court and BOP records to refl ect the change. I n a letter to Abdus-Shakur , Judge Wall s responded, “We will add y ou name change to the docket, but cannot

retr oacti velychange allof our recor ds to re flect your new name.” Judg e W alls did n ot ord er the B OP to reco gnize Ab dus-S haku r’s nam e cha nge o r to
amen d their records. O n or abo ut Dec embe r 29, 2002 , appellant forge d Judge Wa ll’s signat ure on the proposed order compelli ng the BOP to recogni ze the name change a nd submit ted i t di rectlyto the BOP. The Presente nce Investigati on Report (“PSR”) prepared bythe probat ion offi ce identif ied U .S.S.G § 2J1 .2, Ob struction of Ju stice, as th e app ropria te guid eline to apply in th is ca se . T he ba se of

fe ns e l ev el und erth is se ctio n i s 1 2, whi ch was re duc ed bytwo levels for app ellant’s acceptanc e of respo nsibility. Based on his crimin al history category of I V, A bdu s-S hak ur w as e ligib le to b e se nten ced to 1 5 to 21 m ont hs im priso nm ent. Abdus-Shakur objec ted to PSR’s application of t he § 2J1.2 Obstructi on of Justi ce guideline and suggested that the § 2B1.1 Fraud guideline was more appropriate. The base offe nse lev el und er that se ction is 6 . The adde ndu m to th e PS R sta ted, in p art:4

The background commentary to U.S.S. G. § 2J1.1 notes that one of the offens es include d in thi s section is alte ring court records. The defendant clearly atte mpted to alter an ‘ Order’ of the United States District Court by forging Judge Walls’ name in order

to have the BOP acknowledge his legalname change and that vario us reco rd s be amen dedto re fl ect th e na me ch ang e. .. . [ C]o nce ptual ly , i t s eems that t he use of U.S.S. G. § 2B1.1 for a for gery offense would invol ve a financi al loss (hence the loss table). Wh ere no loss ap plies, conceptua lly i t makes m ore sense t o use U.S.S. G. § 2J1.2 for the forge ry of a judge’ s signat ure. Ab dus-S haku r wa s sente nced on A pril 23, 2 004 . At se ntenc ing, he renew ed his objection and argue d that t he District Court

should sentence him under §2B1. 1. After carefulconsider ation, the Dist rict Court dis agreed. In making that dete rminati on, the Court explained: I thi nk in order

to use t he 2B1.1 you ne ed a sense of fr aud, a cl assic common law frau d atte mp ting to d efra ud s om ebo dy. A nd I don ’t thin k w e ha ve th at in t his c ase . The p urpose o f this was n ot to gain the pro perty of anyone else. It is not mo netary in any w ay. The p urpo se of this w as to d eceiv e the B ureau of P risons. I th ink its important

as the government has shown that Judge Walls had i niti ally denied the request of the defend ant for this nam e chang e. (App. 48 ). The Dis tric t C our

t t he n s en te nc ed Abd us -S ha kur to 21 m ont

hs im pr is onm en t a nd two years s upe rvise d re leas e. II. For convictions under

18 U.S.C. § 505, the Stat utoryIndex li sts bot

h § 2B1.1, Fraud, and § 2J 1.2, Obst ructi on of Justi ce, as applicable guide lines . Where more tha n one guideli ne secti on is re ferenced for a parti cular s tatute, “the court wil l dete rmine which of the ref erenc ed gu ideline section s is mo st app ropria te for th e off ense cond uct ch arged in the count of which the defendant was convicted.” U.S. S.G. § 1B1.2, Application Note 1.5

Section 2B1. 1 is cont ained i n Part B of the Guideline Manual, which is entitled “Basic Economic Offenses .” The int roductory commentary st ates, “These sections address ba sic forms of propertyoffens es : th ef t, e m be zz lem en t, fra ud , fo rg er y, counterf eiti ng ... insi der tr ading, trans acti ons in stolen goods, and simple propertydamage or de struction .” (Em phas is add ed). F urther mo re, off ense level in crease s und er this section are de termin ed, in lar ge pa rt, by the am oun t of pe cunia ry loss or h arm th at resu lts fro m th e of fen se. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1(b) (1). In contr ast, Abdus-Shakur’s of fense did not inv olv e pr ope rty or m one y of a ny kin d. See United Stat es v. Cowan , 116 F.3d 1360, 1364 n.5 (10 th Cir. 1997 ) (rejecting application of the fraud g uidelines beca use defe ndant’s for ger y of a jud icial s ign atur e w as “ not des ign ed to def rau d [a nyon e] o f pr ope rty”). Cf
. Un ited Sta tes v. D avis , 26 Fed. A ppx. 100 , 2001 W L 132 5971 a t *1 (4 th Cir. 2001) (unpubli shed) (apply ing the f raud guidel ine where defendant ’s forge ry of a judi cial signa ture “d id no t interfe re w ith any jud icial pro ceed ings, b ut rathe r wa s an a ttemp t to defraud the creditor of it s prop erty .”) (Em phas is add ed). B ecau se ap pellan t’s forg ery did not invol ve property or

financi al harm, we agree with the District Court that hi s conduct does not fal l under § 2B1. 1. Ab dus-S haku r argu es that th e obs truction of jus tice gu ideline is inapp ropria te because hi s forgery di d not interfere wit h any j udicia l procee ding. We dis agree. As the background com mentary for § 2J1.1 states, “Numerous offen ses of varying seri ousness may constitute obstruction of justice [i ncluding]
... “alt ering cour t records.” Byforging3 Original ly , we had marked thi s appeal C. A.V. pending United Stat es v. Booker and United Stat

es v. Fanf

an , Nos. 04- 104, 04-105, because the Appellant clai med that there were impli cati ons invol ving Blakely v . Washingt on , 124 S.C t. 25 31 ( 200 4). Subsequent t o our revi ewing the bri efs in t his matter, t

he Government fil ed a mem oran dum , with n o resp onse from the A ppella nt, wh ich satisf ies us th at Blak ely had no effect on Shakur ’s sentence. We have thereupon affirmed the judgment of sentenc e, and in doing s o, withdr aw the C.A.V. desi gnation. 6 Judg e W alls’ sign ature o n the p ropo sed o rder af ter the ju dge h ad ref used to gran t him relie f, A bdu s-S hak ur a ltere d th e co urt’s rulin g on that m otio n. 

### The District Court was therefore correct in apply ing the § 2J1.2 guideline for obstruction of justice and its order will be a ffirmed. 3