2010 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 2-8-2010 

# U SA v . G ary H ai le 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 . 09-1433

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . 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 . G a r y H ai le " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1916. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1916NOT 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. 09- 1433 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GA RY HA I LE, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

F OR THE DI S TRI CT OF DEL AW ARE ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 08- cr - 00117- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr. Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2010
B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February8, 2010)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antG aryH ai l e ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byi m pr oper l ydel egat i ng author i t yt o t he pr obat i on offi cert o deci de w hetherornotH ai l e s houl d r ece i ve a ment alT h e ju d g m e n t h a d b e e n a m e n d e d to c o rr e c t a c le ri c a l e rr o r. ( A p p . a t 5 0 .) 1 -2- h ea lth ev alua ti o n an d tr ea tm en t as a c o n d it ion o f su p erv ised release . B ec au se th e C o u rt
w a s c lea r th a t itw o u ld m a k e th e u lti m a te d e c isio n a s to w h e th e r a m e n tal h e a lth
e v a l u a t i o n a n d t r e a t me n two u l d b e n e c e s s a r y , we wi l l a f f i r m. BA CKGROUND H ai l e pl ed gui l t yt o a one- counti nfor m at i on char gi ng hi m w i t h H obbs A ct
r obbery , 18 U . S. C . §§ 1951- 52. A thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng on J anuary14, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 168 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , as w el l as a thr ee- y ear t er m of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. ( A pp. at39- 40. ) T hi s appea l chal l enges t he fol l ow i ng sta tem e n t o f

th e C o u rt m a d e w h ile im p o sin g c o n d iti o n s o f su p e rv ise d re lea se : A t th e d ire c tio n o f

y o u r p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r, y o u sh a ll u n d e rg o a m e n tal h e a lth eval uat i on and fol l ow t he r ecomm endat i ons of thateval uat i on; i ncl udi ng part i ci pati on i n an ger m anag em ent orcog nit i ve ther apy . N ow , t here’ s a new cas e thats ay s t hatpr obat i on offi cer s ar e nott o be cha r ged i n es s ence w i t h t hatr es pons i bi l i t y . I t ’ s a non- pr ece dent i al cas e. I ’ m nots ur e w hatt hat m eans. I w ant the record t o refl ectt hat the judge w i l l personall ysupervi se t he nee d fort hatm ent al heal t h eval uat i on and anycogni t i ve ther apy i m pos ed. ” (I d. at41. ) H ai l e di d notobj ectats ent enci ng t o t hi s s t at ement ort o anyof the condi t i ons of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. T he amended j udgm ent i s s ued on February11, 2009 i ncl uded a 1
r equi r ement t hat“D efe ndants hal l under go a ment al heal t h eval uat i on and fol l ow t he
r ecomm endat i ons of the eva l uat i on, i ncl udi ng par t i ci pat i on i n angerm anage m entor cogni t i ve beha vi or al t her apy . ” (I d. at 53 . )-3-

H ai l e appe al ed. H e ar gues t hat“the D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ydel egat ed j udi ci al
a u th o rityto th e p ro b a tio n o f f ice r.” ( A p p e llan t’s B r. at 3 .) H e “ se e k s a re m a n d w ith di r ect i ons t o vaca t e the ment al heal t h condi t i on. ” (I d. ) J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have
a p p e llate ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h e p a rties a g re e th a t o u r re v iew is f o r p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

oelker , 4 8 9 F .3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 3 n .1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed St at es v. W

ar r en , 1 8 6 F . 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). DI S CUS S I ON N ots urpr i s i ngl y , t he part i es offe rdi ffe r enti nt erpr et at i ons of the cha l l enged
s t at ement of the D i s t r i ctC our t . O n t he one ha nd, H ai l e ar gues t hatt he C our tdel egat ed the deci s i on aboutw hetherhe s houl d r ece i ve a ment al heal t h eval uat i on and tr eatm ent ; on t he
o th e r h a n d , the g o v e rn m e n t in sis ts th a t th e C o u rt w a s c lea r in its in stru c tio n th a t H a ile “w as r equi r ed t o under go a ment al heal t h eval uat i on and tr eatm ent . ” ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . at 1 0 . ) I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. P r uden , w e l abor ed t o s t r i ke the appr opr i at e bal ance betw een t w o compet i ng i m per at i ves : namel y , t he “mosti m por t antl i m i t at i on . . . t hata pr obat i on offi cerm aynotdeci de the natur e orext entof the puni s hm enti m pos ed upon a pr obat i oner ” and the r eal i t yt hat“court s cannotbe expe ct ed t o m ap outeverydet ai l of a d e f e n d a n t’s s u p e rv ise d re lea se .” 3 9 8 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T o a c h iev e th isO urdeci s i on i n Heckm an i s i ns t ruct i ve. T her e, t he di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed: “The 2 defe ndants hal l par t i ci pat e i n a ment al heal t h pr ogr am for e val uat i on and/ ort r eatm entas di r ect ed byt he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce. T he def endants hal l r emai n i n t r eatm ent unt i l s at i s fac t or i l ydi s char ged and w i t h t he appr oval of the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce. ” 2010 W L 59185, at*7. W e found thatt hi s w as notan i m pr operdel egat i on beca us e the s econd s ent ence – i ns t ruct i ng t hatH eckman “ sh a llr emai n i n t r eatm ent. . . ” – cl ear ed up anyambi gui t ycaus ed byt he s ent ence t hatpr ece ded i tand “na tur al l yr ead a s r equi r i ng m andat or yt r eatm entand thus l i m i t i ng t he Pr obat i on O ffi ce’ s di s cr et i on. ” I d. at * 8 . -4- bal ance , w e adopt ed the fol l ow i ng s t andar d, w hi ch w e r ece nt l yr eaf fi r m ed i n U

ni t ed St at es v. Heckm an , __ F . 3 d __ , 2 0 1 0 W L 5 9 1 8 5 , at *7 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ): I f [the def

endant ] i s r equi r ed t o par t i ci pat e i n a ment al heal t h i nt er vent i on onl yi f di r ect ed t o do s o byhi s pr obat i on offi cer , t hen thi s s peci al condi t i on cons t i tut es an i m per m i s s i bl e del egat i on of j udi ci al author i t yt o t he pr obat i on o ff icer. O n the o ther h an d , if t h e D istri ct C o u rtw as in tend ing n o thing m o re t han t o del egat e t o t he pr obat i on offi cert he det ai l s w i t h r es pectt o t he selec ti o n an d sch ed u le of the p rog ram , su ch d eleg ati o n w as p rop er. P r uden , 398 F. 3d at250 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. P et ers on , 2 4 8 F . 3 d 7 9 , 8 5 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . It w o u ld b e w ro n g to c h a ra c ter ize th e D istric t C o u rt’s s tate m e n t as re q u irin g H a ile t o par t i ci pat e i n a ment al heal t h eval uat i on and s ubs equentt r eatm entonl yi f the Pr obat i on O f f ic e d e te rm in e d it w a s n e c e s s a ry. In s ta tin g th a t it w o u ld “ s u p e rv is e th e n e e d f o r i t,” th e C o u rt m a d e c lea r th a t itre tain e d c o n tro l o v e r th e d e c isio n . A p p . at 4 1 ; s ee H eckm an , 2010 W L 59185, at*8. M or eover , t he l anguage of the j udgm entor dergi ves no di s cr et i on t o t he Pr obat i on O ffi ce, as i tunequi vocal l ys t at es t hat“the def endants hal l under go a m ent al heal t h eval uat i on and fol l ow t he r ecomm endat i ons of the eva l uat i on. ” ( A pp. at 2-5-

5 3 . ) T hus , beca us e the C our t ’ s or al and w r i t t en i ns t ruct i ons demonst r at e thati tr et ai ned authori t yov er the n eed f or an ev al uati on and t reatm ent, i tdid not com m i terr or, m uch l ess p la in e rr o r, i n im p o s in g th e s p e c ia l c o n d itio n o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e a t is s u e in th is a p p e a l. See H eckm an , 2 0 1 0 W L 5 9 1 8 5 , at *8 (find ing p erm issi b le de lega ti o n w h ere “[p] ar t i ci pat i on i n t he ment al heal t h t r eatm entpr ogr am i t s el f i s m andat or y , and onl yt he d etail s are to b e se t bythe P rob ati o n O ff ice” ). CO NC L US I ON T h e ju d g m e n t o f

s e n te n c e w ill b e a f

f ir m e d .