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 10-8-2008 

# U SA v . Hur t 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 . 07-1250

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 a nova . 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Hur t " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 395. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/395NOT 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. 07- 1250 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . NA THA NI EL HU RT,

A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 05- cr - 00431- 01) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember25, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober8, 2008)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge N a th a n iel H u rt c h a llen g e s h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e f o r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istri b u te m o re tha n fiftyg ram s o f c o ca ine b ase (i n v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1)), pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug- t r aff i cki ng cr i m e ( i n vi ol at i on of 18T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 2 U . S. C . § 924( c) ) , and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on ( i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ) . F o rt h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m. H u rtw as re lease d o n p aro le i n co n n ec ti o n w ith a se n tenc e f o r ca rry ing a f

ir ea rm w i t houta l i cens e. A condi t i on of thatpar ol e w as t hathe r efr ai n fr om us i ng, pos s es s i ng, ors el l i ng contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s . D ur i ng a meet i ng w i th hi s par ol e off i cer , how ever , he r evea l ed thathe had pur chas ed X anax “ off the s t r eet s ” w i t houta pr es cr i pt i on and cons um ed i t . T he off

i ceradmi ni s t er ed a ur i ne t es t , t he r es ul t s of w hi ch w er e pos i t i ve for benzodi aze pi ne ( an i ngr edi entof X anax) . B as ed on thes e r es ul t s and othercons i der at i ons th a t ar o u se d su sp icio n o f d ru g a c tiv ity

— f

o r in sta n c e , H u rt’s a p p a re n tlysig n if ica n t w e a lth des pi t e the l ack of

anyver i fi ed empl oym ent

— t he par ol e depa r t m entdeci ded t o s ear ch H u rt’s a p a rtm e n t. W h en p aro le of

fice rs an d law en fo rce m en t perso n n el ex ec u ted th e se arc h , H u rt p o in te d a g u n a t o n e o f

th e m a n d in itia lly d is o b e y e d a n o rd e r t o p u t th e g u n d o w n . A s ear ch of the apa r t m entul t i m at el yr evea l ed cr ack c ocai ne, a di gi t al s cal e, a potand l ar ge s i l verut ens i l s w i t h coca i ne- bas e r es i due on them, and s i m i l ari t ems. A j ur yconvi ct ed H u rt o f th e c ri m e s n o te d a b o v e . A ft erenhanc i ng H ur t ’ s offe ns e l evel underU . S. S. G . § 3A 1. 2( c) ( 1) forcr eat i ng a “su b stan ti al ri sk o f se ri o u s b o d il yinjury ” to a law en fo rce m en t of fice r, the D istri ct C o u rt i m po sed a be l ow -G uidel i nes sent ence o f 30 0 m on t hs’ i m pri sonm ent. H urtapp eal s. 13

H e a rg u e s th a t th e o f

f ice rs’ se a rc h o f

h is a p a rtm e n t v io late d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. W e d isa g re e . B e c a u se H u rt w a s o n p a ro le, th e o f f ice rs n e e d e d o n ly “re aso n ab le su sp ici o n ” tha t th eyw o u ld f ind ev iden ce o f a p aro le vio lat ion in H u rt ’s a p a rt m e n t. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 221 F. 3d 438, 443–44 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . G i ven, among ot hercons i der at i ons , t he pos i t i ve drug t es tand the par ol e off i cer ’ s know l edge that drug us er s t ypi cal l ys t or e thei rdrugs athom e, t he off i cer s m ett hi s s t andar d. H u rt a lso a rg u e s th a t, be c a u se h e d id n o t in ten d to c a u se b o d ilyin ju rya n d th u s d id notcomm i taggr avat ed as s aul t , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave a ppl i ed the § 3A 1. 2( c) ( 1) enhanc ementforcr eat i ng a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yt o a l aw enfor cementoffi cer . H e bas es t hi s ar gum enton comm ent aryt o t he enha ncement G ui del i ne that“[s ] ubs ect i on ( c) appl i es i n ci r cumst ance s t ant amount t o aggr avat ed as s aul t . ” § 3A 1. 2( c) appl i cat i on not e 4( A ) . B ut“‘ t ant amount ’ does notm ean

‘ i dent i cal ’ ”; i ti s s uffi ci entt hatH ur t ’ s conductcl ear l ypr es ent ed the nec es s aryr i s k of harm and thathe had “ ampl e r eas on t o know t hatfea rw i l l be ca us ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lee , 1 9 9 F .3 d 1 6 , 1 8

– 1 9 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). N ordo w e agr ee thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tengage d i n i m perm i s s i bl e doubl e- count i ng w h e n it ap p lied th e e n h a n c e m e n t d e sp ite a lso se n ten c in g H u rt f o r p o ss e ss in g a f

ire a rm in f u rth e ra n c e o f

a d ru g -tra f

f ick in g c rim e . “[ O ]n lyw h e n th e G u id e lin e s e x p licitlyp ro h ib it doubl e count i ng w i l l i tbe i m perm i s s i bl e t o r ai s e a de fenda nt ’ s offe ns e l evel underone pr ovi s i on w hen anotheroffe ns e G ui del i ne al r eadyt akes i nt o acc ountt he s ame conduct . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. F is her , 502 F. 3d 293, 309 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng4

U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ong , 3 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 )). H u rt p o in ts to n o e x p licit pr ohi bi t i on. H urt ’s fi nal tw o argum ents do no tpersuade u s. F i rs t , view i ng t he record as a w hol e, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatats ent enci ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tadequa t el ycons i der ed the per t i nent18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s and r eas onabl yappl i ed them t o H ur t ’ s cas e t o arr i ve ati t s bel ow -G uidel i nes sent ence. Seco nd , t he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not com m i ta gross abuse of di s cr et i on i n perm i t t i ng t he G overnm entt o admi tpr oof of the i nt er s t at e comm er ce e le m e n t o f

th e f e lo n -i n -p o s s e s s io n c o u n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Ji m enez , 513 F. 3d 62, 84 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng or derof pr oof i s notr ever s i bl e abs ent

“‘ gr os s abus e of di s cr et i on’ ” ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C hr

z anow s ki502 F. 2d 573, 576 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 4 )). F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m.