2007 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 12-13-2007 

# U SA v . N agle 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 . 05-2851

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 . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

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 sity 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 2007 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 sity 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Na gle " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 76. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/76NOT 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

__________ N o. 05- 2851

__________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

vs. NI KO LE NA GLE,

Appel l ant

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt For t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C r i m . N o. 04- 585) Di s t r i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Ga r r e t tE . Br o wn

__________ Subm i t t ed on N ovember 28, 2007

___________ B e f o re : B A R R Y , F U E N T E S a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber13, 2007)

___________ OP I NI ON

__________ G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : N i kol e N agl e ( “N agl e”) appea l s fr om t he fi nal j udgm entof convi ct i on and se n ten c e f

o r c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it i n su ra n c e f ra u d a n d f

o r m a k in g f

a lse d istre ss sig n a ls to t he U . S. C oas tG uar d, ent er ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our ton M ay25, 2005. N agl e ar gues t hat-1-

the D istri ct C o u rterred in f ind ing that h er c o n fe ssion w as v o lun taryan d there fo re a d m is s ib le f

o r i m p e a c h m e n t. I n a d d itio n , s h e c la im s th a t h e r s e n te n c e w a s u n re a s o n a b le . W e af fi r m bot h t he convi ct i on and t he s ent ence . I. 

### OnAu gu st

19 , 200 4, a federa l grandjury charged N agle and h er

comm on -l aw hu sb an dD erekN ich o lso n(“N ich o lso n ”) ina tw o -co un t in d ictm en t w ithco n sp iracy to d ef rau danin suran ce co m

p any an dm ak in g f

alse d istress sig n als to th e U .S . C o ast G u ard . On De c e m

be r 1, 2004, ajury

r e t urne d gui l ty

ve r di c t s wi th r e s pe c t s t o both de fe ndant s on all co un ts. Th e c on vict ions ar ose out of the defendants’ c on spir ac y to defraud S tate Farm I ns ur anc e Com

pany by faki ng Ni c hol s on’ s de ath. On Jul y 22, 2003, Ni c hol s on t ook out a $ 1 m illio np o licy

o nh is lif e, af ter b ein g d en iedanap p licatio nf o r a $ 3 m illio np o licy . F o ur d ay s later, N ich o lso nd isap p earedan dN ag le claim edth at h e h addro w n edw h ile s wi mm i ng i n the oc e an. OnAu gu st

1, 20 03 , Nagle file d a cl ai m with Stat e Far

m fo r $1 m il li on . How ever , the i ns ur anc e c om

pany i nform e d he r

that i t woul d t ake s e ve r a lye ar s t o di s pe ns e the i ns ur anc e be ne fi t s wi thout phy s i c a lpr oof of Ni c hol s on’ s de ath. Havi ng r e a l i z e d that the f rau dco n sp iracy

w o u ldb e un su ccessf

u l w ith o ut h is d eadb o dy , N ich o lso nd ecid edto r e e m e r ge afe w day s l at e r on Augus t

4, c l a i m i ng m e m ory

l os s and that

he wa s ki dna

pe d.-2-



### As ar e s ul t

of afe de r a li nve s t i gat i on, both Ni c hol s on and Na gl e we r e arr e s t e d on M ay 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 . With ina f

ewh o urs o f

th e arrest an dh av in g b eenin f o rm edo f th eir rig h ts un der Mi randa v . Ar i

z ona , 384 U.S. 43 6 (19 66 ), bo th defend ants subm itte d w ri tt en c onfe s s i ons . At

tr i a l , Na gl e c l a i m e d that

he r c onfe s s i on wa s c oe r c e d and thus i nvol unt ary . The Di s tr i c t Court he l d thr e e he ar i ngs on thi s i s s ue and found that the c onfe s s i on wa s gi ve n vol unt ar i l y and the r e for e a dm i s s i bl e . Though Na gl e ’ s c onfe s s i on wa s not i ntr oduc e d i n the tr i a l , the Gove rnm e nt r e s e rve d the r i ght

t o us e he r

c onfe s s i on as im peac hm ent i f she te st ifie d in h er defense. O nM ay 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , N ag le w as sen ten cedto 1 8 m o n th s im p riso n m en t, w h ichw as a sub stan tial d o w n g rad e f

ro m th e 4 1 -5 1 m o n thran g e un d er th e S en ten cin g G u id elin es. The Di s tr i c t

Court found that

Na gl e ha d e xtr a or di nary fam i l y c i r c um s t anc e s jus t i fyi ng a l owe r s e nt e nc e , be c aus e Na gl e ha d thr e e young c hi l dr e n, one of whom s uffe r e d fr om auti sm . How ever , the court decl ined to re du ce the s ente nce any fu rther, ci ti ng the nee d to prom ote r es pect

fo r the law, to prov ide just pun is hm ent, to affo rd adequate det er re nce to criminalconduct, and to p rote ct the pub li c. Nagle fil ed a t im el y

no ti ce of appealonJune 2, 20 05 , arguing that the Dis tric t Co urt e rr ed in find ing h er conf es si onto be vo luntar

y and that her

se ntence was unreaso n ab le, g iv enh er f am ily o b lig atio n s. II.-3-

W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a )(1 ), w h ich p ro v id e s a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on overs ent ence s i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on of l aw , and under28 U . S. C . § 1291, w hi ch pr ovi des appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on fr om al l fi nal deci s i ons of U . S. di s t r i ctcour t s . T he D istri ct C o u rth ad su b

ject m att er jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 , w h ich c o n fe rs j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e ra l l o f

f e n s e s a g a i n s tf

e d e r a l l a w. W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er q u esti o n s o f law an d ac ce p t a distr ictco u rt ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t u n le s s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . See A riz o n a v . Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. 279 (1 9 9 1 ); U

ni t ed St at es v. Sw i nt , 15 F. 3d 286 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W e r evi ew s ent ence s for re a s o n a b le n e s s , a p p lyin g th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). 

### See U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 -62 (20 0 5 ). A sen tenc e is reas o n ab le i f th e re co rd d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt g a v e m e a n in g f u l c o n s id e ra tio n to th e s e f a c to rs . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H o w ev er, w e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew the e x tent o f a d istri ct co u rt ’s do w n w ard d e p a rt u re f

ro m th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . See Cooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 3 3 ; U ni t ed St at es v. Kh a lil , 1 3 2 F . 3 d 8 9 7 , 8 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ).



### III.-4-

T h e tw o issue s in this ap p ea l are (1) w h ethe r N ag le’s co n fe ssion w as v o lun tary and ( 2) w het herhers ent ence w as r eas onabl e.

A. N agl e ar gues t hatherconfe s s i on w as i nvol unt ar ybeca us e i tr es ul t ed fr om ps y chol ogi cal coer ci on. D ef. B r . at11. A ft ers he w as ar r es t ed and i nfor m ed of he r Mi r anda r i ght s , N agl e as s er t ed herr i ghtt o couns el . N i chol s on w as al s o ar r es t ed and det ai ned i n anot herr oom , w her e he s ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en conf es s i on i ncr i m i nat i ng hi m s el f. A po st al i nspector, w ho w as i n the r oo m w i t h N agle t old her, am on g o t her t hings, t hat N i cho l son sho uld “t el l [] the truth t o p rot ect his fam i l y ” and refer red t o the N . J. D i vi s i on of Y out h and Fami l ySer vi ces . D ef. B r . at16. T hes e s t at ement s occurr ed af t er N a g l e r e q u e s t e d t o s e e a n a t t o r n e y. A p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o h o u r s a f t e rN a g l e ’ s a r r e s t , N i c h o l s o n ( a c c o m p a n i e d b y a s peci al agent ) ent er ed t he r oom w her e N agl e w as det ai ned. N i chol s on pr ocee ded t o pl ead w i t h N agl e t o “t el l t he t r ut h [and d] o t he r i ghtt hi ng. ” D ef. B r . at14; A pp. at13. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatN agl e “then l ooked up and s ai d t o t he age nt s , I w antt o t al k, can I w ri t e every t hing, y es, i f i t ’s t he truth and sh e proceed ed to do so . ” A pp . at 13 . A s a r es ul tof N i chol s on’ s i nt er vent i on, N agl e w r ot e a c onfes s i on i ncr i m i nat i ng her s el f. N agl e ar gues t hatt hes e t w o fac t or s – t he pos t al i ns pect or ’ s s t at ement s aft ers he i nvoked herr i ghtt o couns el and N i chol s on’ s emot i onal pl ea – c ons t i t ut ed coe r ci ve-5-

i nt er r ogat i on undert he t ot al i t yof ci r cumst ance s . D ef. B r . at20. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hr ee s uppr es s i on hear i ngs on w het herN agl e’ s confe s s i on w as vol unt ar yand i s s ued rul i ngs on t w o m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on. A m ong ot her th in g s, th e c o u rt f

o u n d th a t “m e re lyp lac in g su sp e c ts to g e th e r d o e s n o t co n stitu te in ter ro g a tio n .” A p p . at 1 5 . S in c e “ [ t]h is w a s M r. N ich o lso n ’s r e q u e st, b ya c c e d in g to it, la w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e rs w e re n o t in itia tin g a n ys u b s e q u e n t in te rr o g a tio n .” A p p . a t 1 5 . H avi ng r evi ew ed t he compr ehens i ve r ecor d, w e hol d t hatt he cour tdi d noter ri n fi ndi ng N a g l e ’ s c o n f

e s s i o n t o h a v e b e e n v o l u n t a r y. T he fa ct s es t abl i s hed i n t he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e demonst r at e t hatN agl e’ s confe s s i on w as vol unt ar y . She w as notques t i oned byl aw enfor cementaft ers he r eques t ed t o s ee a n at t or neyand gave herconfe s s i on on herow n vol i t i on aft erherhus band pl eade d w i t h her t o t el l t he t r ut h. A s t he Supr eme C our tfound i n a s i m i l arcas e, N agl e “w as nots ubj ect ed t o compel l i ng i nfl uence s , ps y chol ogi cal pl oy s , ordi r ectques t i oni ng. ” A ri zona v. Mau ro , 481 U . S. 520, 529 ( 1987) . W e al s o “doubtt hata s us pect , t ol d byoffi cer s t hat[her sp o u se ] w ill b e a llo w e d to sp e a k to [ h e r], w o u ld f e e l th a t [ sh e ] w a s b e in g c o e rc e d to i ncr i m i nat e [he r s el f] i n anyw ay . ” Id . at 5 2 8 . T h u s, N ich o lso n ’s p lea d in g w ith h is w if e to t el l t he t r ut h, w i t houtanyques t i oni ng ori nt er vent i on byl aw enfor cement , w as nott he ki nd of “ps y chol ogi cal pl oyt hatpr oper l ycoul d be t r eat ed as t he func t i onal equi val entof i nt er r ogat i on. ” Id . at527. B.

### Mo re ov er , a s the Go vernm ent argued in a May 29 , 200 7 lette r t o the Co urt, even 1 

### if w e h adj urisd ictio nto rev iewth e d o w nw ardd ep arture, anap p eal o f th is issu e w o u ld h av e b eend ism issedas m o o t g iv enN ag le’s release f ro m p riso n . See Unite d States v . Kiss inger , 309 F.3d17 9, 18 1-81 (3d C ir . 200 2). -6- 

### Wi th re spec t t o h er

se ntence , Nagle argu es that the Dis tric t Court ’s do wn ward de part ur e fr om a41- 51 m onth r ange unde r the Se nt e nc i ng Gui de l i ne s t o 18 m onths of im p riso n m en t, du e to N ag le’s ex trao rd in ary f am ily circum stan ces, w as unreaso n ab le be c aus e s he s houl d have be e n gi ve n the opport uni ty s e rve anon- c us t odi a ls e nt e nc e of pr obat i on. As am othe r

of thr e e c hi l dr e n unde r

the a ge of fi ve , Na gl e ar gue s that s he shou ld no t s er

ve any ti m e i n p ri son f

or her c ri m es , e spec ia ll y

given the fact

that her hu sb an dN ich o lso nw as sen ten cedto f iv e years im

p riso n m en t. The Gove rnm e nt

r e s ponds that

thi s Court

l a c ks jur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the e xt e nt of a d istrict co urt’s d o w nw ardd ep arture f ro m th e S en ten cin g G u id elin es. B asedo nw elles ta blis hed p re ce dent in this and o ther ci rc uits , we a gree . See Cooper , 437 F. 3d at333 1 (“ W e f o llo w th e C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e F irst, S ix th , E ig h th , T e n th , an d E lev e n th C ir cu it s in d ec li n ing to rev iew , af ter B ooker , a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o deny d e p a rtu re .”); Kh a lil , 132 F. 3d at898 ( “[W ] e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew [a d e f e n d a n t’s] a p p e a l f

ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d isc re tio n a ryd o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re o f h is sen tenc e.”). 

### IV .-7-



### F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e af

f irm th e D istrict C o urt’s fi nal j udgm entof con vict i on and sent ence f or consp i racyt o co m m i ti nsurance fraud and for m aking fals e di s t r es s s i gnal s , ent er ed on M ay25, 2005 

### .