# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 20 04

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Fran k Do nt rel l Wash in gt on , Jr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Dub uq ue

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

12 , 20 18
Fi le d: Ju ne 27 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Thi s ap pe al rai se s, pr im ari ly, two is su es of in te rp ret at io n. Fran k W as hi ng to n

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in i t s i n te rp ret at io n of th e Sp eed y Tria l Act an d

craf te d an un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W e ag ree wit h

th e la tt er c h a l l en ge , bu t di sa gr ee wit h th e fo rm er as se rti on

. W e al so di sa gr ee wit h

W as hi ng to n’s on l y o t he r cl ai m on ap pe al —t ha t hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el yun reas on ab le . Thu s, we af fir m in pa rt a nd rem an d nar ro wly fo r th e di st ric t cou rt to

reco ns id er t he ch al le ng ed sp eci al co nd it io n.

I.

The un de rlyin g fact s are rel at iv el y st rai gh tfo rward

. W as hi ng to n was arre st ed

at hi s re si de nc e o n J un e 9 , 20 16 on th e b as is of a co m pl ai nt th at all eg ed po ss es si on
wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m ari juan a. See 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). Ju st ov er a m on th

la te r—3 3 da y s to be pr eci se —a gr an d jury ch arg ed W as hi ng to n wit h po ss es si on wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e wit hi n 10 00 feet of a sc ho ol

. See id

. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(D), 8 6 0( a).

W as hi ng to n m ad e hi s in it ia l ap pe aran ce on th e in di ct m en t o n O c t ob er 3, 20 16

. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, he m ov ed to di sm is s t he in di ct m en t b ecau se of S pe ed y Tria l Act

vi ol at io ns

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 31 61 -3 17 4. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th at m ot io n. 1

W as hi ng to n th en wen t to tri al

. Afte r th ree da y s o f d e l i be rat io n, th e jury ret ur ne d a

gu il ty v erd ic t. At se nt en ci ng , Wash in gt on ’s a dv is or y Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge

was se t at 21 to 27 m on th s im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t ev en tu al ly se nt en ced hi m

to 27 m on th s im

pr is on m en t wit h fo ur y ears o f s u p e r vi se d rel eas e. The te rm of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e in cl ud ed a sp eci al co nd it io n wit h res pe ct to ga ng as so ci at io n an d

act iv it y (Sp eci al Co nd it io n # 3)

.

On ap pe al

, W as hi ng to n ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on hi s S p e e d y

T ri al A ct cl ai m , th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce, an d Sp eci al Co nd it ion

#3 . W e ad dr es s ea ch in tu rn

.

II.

The Sp eed y Tria l Act was pa ss ed by Co ng res s “ to gi ve effe c t t o t h e [ S]ixt h
[A]m en dm en t rig ht ” to a sp eed y tri al

. Bet te rm an v. Mo nt an a, 13 6 S. Ct

. 16 09

, 16 16

W e ref er s om et im es to th e Sp eed y Trial Act as th e “ Act.” 1

-2

-(2 01 6) (in te rn a l qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. On ap pe al

, W as hi ng to n arg ue s th at th e

go ve rn m en t vi ol at ed th e Act’s di rect io n th at “ no m or e th an 3 0 d a ys p a ss be twee n

arre st an d in di ct m en t,” id

., gi ve n 33 da y s p as se d bet ween hi s arres t and in di ct m en t.

W he n th e go ve rn m en t ru ns afo ul of th is ti m efra m e, th e Act sa nc ti on s th e go ve rn m en t by st at in g: “ su ch ch arg e

. . . co nt ai ne d in su ch c o m p l a i nt sh al l be di sm is se d or

ot he rwis e dr op pe d.” 18 U.S.C. § 31 62 (a)( 1) (em ph as is ad de d)

. As no te d ab ov e, th e

co m pl ai nt an d in di ct m en t in th is cas e ch a r g e d two di ffer en t of fen se s. Sen si ng th e

te xt ua l ba rri er to hi s de si red rem ed y , di sm is sa l of th e in di ct m en t, W as hi ng to n ur ge s
ad op ti on of th e so -cal le d “ gi ld in g ex cep ti on .” In th eo ry , bu t no t of te n in pr act ic e, th is

do ct rin e al lo ws di sm is sa l un de r th e Act whe re “ a [la te r] ch ar g e i s o n e t ha t m erel y

an no ta te s in m or e de ta i l t h e sa m e ch arg e al le ge d in th e [co m pl ai nt ]. ” See Uni te d

St at es v. Bai le y , 11 1 F.3 d 12 29

, 12 36 (5 th Ci r. 19 97 ). The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to

ap pl y th e gi ld in g ex cep ti on , bu t no te d th at ou r ci rcu it ha s y et to sp eak de fin it iv el y on
it s v al id it y . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s l eg al co nc lu si on de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s

v. Her bs t, 6 66 F.3d 50 4, 5 09 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

W e fi nd th at th ere i s n o g il di ng ex cep ti on to th e Sp eed y Tria l Act. Our pr io r
ho ld in gs —wh il e no t tak in g th e gi ld in g exc ep ti on he ad on —s eem in gl y fo recl os e it s

ap pl ic at io n to th e Sp eed y Tria l Act. See, e.g , Un it e d S t at es v. Mi ll er, 23 F.3 d 19 4,

19 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ A de fen da nt ’s arre st on on e ch arg e do es no t ne ces sa ril y tri gg er
th e rig ht to a sp eed y tri al on an ot he r ch arg e fil e d aft er hi s arre st .”). Mo re
im po rta nt ly, th os e ho ld in gs are in li ne wit h th e te xt of t h e s t a tu te

. Aga in

, th e Act

on ly pe rm it s di sm is sa l of “ su ch ch arg e

. . . co nt ai ne d in su ch [ear li er] co m pl ai nt .” 18

U.S.C. § 31 62 (a)( 1)

. Giv en th e un am bi gu ou s wor di ng of th e st at ut e, it sh ou ld ha rd ly

co me a s a su rp ris e th at co ur ts rece nt ly “ ha ve qu es ti on ed [th e gi ld in g ex cep ti on ’s]

do ct rin al va li di ty” as ap pl ie d to th e Sp eed y Tria l Act. Uni te d St at es v. Trud eau , 81 2

F.3 d 57 8, 58 7 (7 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 7 S

. C t

. 5 6 6 ( 2 0 16 ). W e de cl in e to read a

“ gi ld in g ex cep ti on ” in to cl ear st at ut or y la ng uage

. Cf. Hen so n v. San ta nd er Co ns um er
USA Inc ., 13 7 S . Ct. 1 71 8, 1 72 6 (2 01 7) (“ [T]he p ro pe r ro le of th e jud ic ia ry

. . . [is ]

to ap pl y , no t am en d, t he work of t he Peo pl e’s rep res en ta ti ve s.”)

.

-3

-W as hi ng to n be li ev es th is wou ld pr ov id e a pe rv ers e in cen t iv e to th e

go ve rn m en t. At o ral arg um en t, i t was su gg es te d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t co ul d wait “ a
da y , a m on th

, a y ear, two y ears an d si m pl y ge t aro un d th e Sp eed y Tria l Act by ad di ng

a pr ot ect ed zo ne l o c a ti on .” Bu t, th e so lu ti on to th at hypo th et ic al sc en ari o is no t to

“ do [] vi ol en ce to t he st at ut or y la ng ua ge ” in th e Sp eed y Tria l Act. Je nn in gs v.
Ro dr ig ue z, 13 8 S . Ct. 8 30 , 84 8 (2 01 8) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Ins te ad

, pr ot ect io n m ay

li e in th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t to a sp eed y tri al —a c on st it ut io na l rig ht di st in ct fr o m t h e Act. Uni te d St at es v. Sh ep ard

, 46 2 F.3 d 84 7, 86 3 (8 th Ci r.
20 06 ) (“ Si xt h Am en dm en t an d S p e e d y Tria l Act ch al le ng es fo r de la y are rev ie wed

in de pe nd en tl y of on e an ot he r.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Giv en th at it was

no t br ie fed be fo re us , we do no t ex am in e whe th er th e Si xt h Am en dm en t was vi ol at ed

he re.

Add it io na ll y , eve n i f we were to reco gn iz e a g il di ng ex cep ti on to th e Sp eed y
Tria l Act, th at wou ld no t le ad to th e di sm is sa l of W as hi ng to n’s in di ct m en t. The

m ajor it y of o u r s i s te r ci rcu it s th at ha ve co ns id ered th e qu es ti on ha ve ag reed th at a
la te r-i nd ic te d ch arg e whi ch co nt ai ns di ffer en t el em en ts th an th e ch arg e in th e in it ia l

co m pl ai nt is no t s u b

je c t to di sm is sa l un de r th e gi ld in g ex cep ti on

. Thi s is in li ne 2

“ wit h Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t an al y zi ng m ul ti pl e pr os ecu ti on s.” Bai le y , 11 1 F.3 d

at 12 36

. Here, th e in di ct ed cri m e req ui red an ad di ti on a l e l e men t— ev id en ce th at

W as hi ng to n was wit hi n 10 00 feet of a sc ho ol —b ey on d th e or ig in al po ss es si on wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e ch arg e in th e co m pl ai nt

. The do ct rin e, as wid el y un de rs to od

, do es

no t o ffer su pp or t fo r W as hi ng to n’s cl ai m

.

His arg um en t fare s n o b e tt er un de r a m in or it y vi ew of th e gi ld in g ex cep ti on

. Thi s vi ew, m os t pr om in en tl y ad op te d by th e Ten th Ci rcu it

, pl aces e mp h a s i s on th e

Uni te d St at es v. Gas ki n, 36 4 F.3 d 43 8, 45 6 (2 d Ci r. 20 04 ) ; U n i te d St at es v. 2

W at ki ns , 33 9 F.3 d 16 7, 17 6 (3d Ci r. 20 03 ); Bai le y , 11 1 F.3d at 12 37 ; Uni te d St at es v. Der os e, 74 F.3d 11 77 , 11 84 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ).

-4

-un de rlyin g fact ua l al le ga ti on s

. S ee Uni te d St at es v. And rews , 79 0 F.2 d 80 3, 80 9

(1 0t h C i r

. 19 86 ) (d is m is si ng su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t be cau se it “ al le ge [d ] no fact s
di ffer en t” th an pr ev io us ch arg in g in st ru m en t); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Pep pi n, 36 5

F. Su pp

. 2d 26 1, 26 9 (N.D.N.Y. 20 05 ) (fi nd in g th at gi ld in g ex cep ti on m ay ap pl y ev en
whe n “ ne w ch arg es c o n t a i n a dd it io na l el em en ts ”). Eve n un de r th is vi ew, th e 3

al le ga ti on s of ho w f

ar W as hi ng to n was fro m a sc ho ol in th e i n d i c t m en t co ns ti tu te d

ne w fact s n ot in cl ud ed in th e in it ia l co m pl ai nt

.

In su m , we do no t ad op t a “ gi ld in g ex cep ti on ” to th e Sp e e d y Tr i a l A ct

an d— ev en if we d id —i t wo ul d n ot warran t d is m is sa l o f W as hi ng to n’s cl ai m

.

III.

Nex t, W as hi ng to n c ha ll en ge s t he su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s sen te nc e.

He arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t va ry in g do wnwar d fro m hi s Gui de li ne s

ran ge be cau se “ (1 ) of th e im pa ct of th e pr ot ect ed l o c a t io n en ha nc em en t

. . . ; (2 ) of

th e sm al l qu an ti ty of m ari ju a n a a t i s su e; an d (3 ) th e le ga li zat io n of m ari juan a by

se ve ral st at es .” W e rev ie w fo r ab u se of di sc ret io n, whi ch “ oc cu rs whe n a di st ric t

co ur t (1 ) fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed s i g n i f i can t

w e i g h t ; (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ; or (3 )

co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a cl ear

erro r of jud gm en t.” U n i t e d S ta te s v. Mar sh al l, 20 18 W L 24 65 48 5, at *2 (8 th Ci r.

Ju ne 4, 20 18 ) (p er cu ria m ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. A “ [s ]ent en ce[] wit hi n
th e [G]uid el in e ran ge ,” ho wev er, “ [is ] pr es um ed to be su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le .”

Uni te d St at es v. Mea do ws, 86 6 F.3 d 91 3, 92 0 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. And it is a “ de fen da nt ’s bu rd en to reb ut th e pr es um pt io n an d to sh ow

Pep pi n is sq ua rel y at od ds wit h th e Seco nd Ci rcu it ’s ho ld in g in Gas ki n “ th at 3 pl ead in gs th at ad d el em en ts to th e go ve rn m en t’s bu rd en of p r oo f be y on d th os e
req ui red fo r th e le ss er in cl ud ed ch arg es in a co m pl ai nt do m or e th an gi ld th e or ig in al
ch arg es .” 36 4 F .3d at 4 56

.

-5

-th at th e se nt e n c e s h o u l d ha ve be en lo wer.” Uni te d St at es v. Fu nk e, 84 6 F.3 d 99 8,

10 00 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

W as hi ng to n ha s of

fere d no ev id en ce to reb ut ou r p r e s u mp ti on

. The di st ric t

co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered th e 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (a) fact or s— an d W as hi ng to n’s

arg um en ts —b ut in th e e n d fo un d a Gui de li ne s se nt en ce was ne ces sa ry be cau se

W as hi ng to n “ is at ex tre m el y hi gh ris k to reci di va te ” in ad di ti on to a nu m be r of ot he r
f act or s, in cl ud in g hi s “ ga ng m em be rs hi p” an d “ la ck of res pe ct fo r au th or it y,

sp eci fic al ly the po li ce.” Pu t an ot he r way , t he di st ric t co ur t b al an ced , and weig he d,

th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in a m an ne r di ffer en t th an W as hi ng to n wou ld ha ve li ke d. W e,
ho wev er, gr an t di st ric t co ur ts “ wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) in each cas e an d

a s s i g n so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria t e

se nt en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Ri tc hi so n, 88 7 F.3 d 36 5, 37 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at i o n marks om it te d)

. Giv en th is , t he di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n
in sen te nc in g wi th in th e Gui de li ne s.

IV.

Fi na ll y , W as hi ng to n arg ue s th at Sp eci al Co ndi tio n #3 of his su pe rv is ed rel eas e,
whi ch de al s wit h ga ng as so ci at io n, is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e. In fu ll

, th e co nd it io n

st at es :

The de fen da nt m

us t no t kn owi ng ly assoc ia te w ith an y m em be r, pr os pe ct

,
or as so ci at e m em

be r of an y ga ng wit ho ut th e pr io r a p p r o v a l of th e Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce. If t h e d efen da nt is fo un d to be in th e

co m pa ny of su ch in di vi du al s whi le weari ng t h e cl ot hi ng , co lo rs , or in si gn ia of a ga ng , th e Co ur t will pr es um e th at th is as so ci at io n was for
th e p ur po se of p art ic ip at in g i n g an g a ct iv it ie s.

-6

-Wh i l e a di st ric t co ur t ha s “ br oa d di sc ret io n” to im po se sp eci al co nd it io ns , whe n a
de fen da nt ch al le ng es a sp eci al co nd it io n on co ns ti tu ti on al gr ou nd s, as in th is cas e, we

rev ie w de n ov o. Un it ed Sta te s v . Kell y , 62 5 F .3d 51 6, 5 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

W e ag ree wit h W as hi ng t o n t h a t th e sp eci al co nd it io n at is su e he re is

un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e fo r th ree reas on s. Fir st
, th e te rm ga ng is un de fin ed su ch th at

it gi ve s no no ti ce as to whi ch gro up s o f pe op le are ac tu al ly cov ered . “ Gan g” is no t

de fin ed in an y rel ev an t st at ut e. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. Green , 6 18 F.3 d 1 2 0

, 1 2 3 ( 2d

Ci r. 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ The te rm ‘crim in al st reet ga ng ’ is cab in ed by a c l e a r

st at ut or y de fin it io n th at wou ld pe rm it Green to co m pl y wit h th e co nd it io n an d pe rm it

of fic ers to co ns is te nt ly en fo rce th e co nd it io n

. ” ). And th e te rm is no t de li ne at ed by

co m m on us e. Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry de fin es “ ga ng ” as a “ gr ou p of pe rs on s who go
ab ou t to ge th er or act in co nc ert

, es p. fo r a n t i s o c i al or cri m in al pu rp os es .” Gan g,
Bl ack ’s Law D i c t i o n a r y (1 0t h ed

. 20 14 ). Thu s, ga ng s are no t ne ces sa ril y ti ed to

cri m in al a c t i v i t y. See LoFr an co v. U.S. Paro le Co m m ’n, 98 6 F. Su pp

. 79 6, 81 0 (S.D

. N

. Y. 19 97 ) (fi nd in g te rm “ ot he r m ot or cy cl e ga ng s” un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e
be cau se it en sn ares le gi ti m at e “ m ot or cy cl e gr ou ps ” th at co un t in di vi d u a ls li ke

“ Arn o l d S c h w a r z en eg ge r” as m em be rs ), aff’d, 17 5 F.3 d 10 08 (2 d Ci r. 19 99 ). The

la ck of st at ut or y de fin it io n an d it s wid e-ra ng in g us e m ean th at th e te rm “ ga ng ” fai ls

to “ co nv ey [] s uf

fic ie nt ly d efi ni te warn in g as to th e p r o s c rib ed co nd uc t” th e di st ric t

c o u rt wan ts W as hi ng to n to av oi d “ whe n m eas ur ed by co m m on un de rs ta nd i n g a n d

pr act ic es .” Jo rd an v. De Geo rg e, 34 1 U.S. 2 23 , 23 1- 32 (19 51 ).

S e c o n d

, th e te rm “ as so ci at e m em be r” al so la ck s sp eci fic m ean in g. If it wer e

us ed to m ean a “ m em

be r” of a ga ng , a te rm al read y us ed by th e Co nd it io n, “ as so ci at e

m em be r” wou ld be rep et it iv e. And it is a can on of r ead in g l eg al tex ts th at no word

“ sh ou l d n eed le ss ly be gi ve n an in te rp ret at io n th at cau se s it to du pl ic at e an ot he r

pr ov is io n or to ha ve no co ns eq ue nc e.” Ant on in Scal ia & Bryan A. Garn er, Rea di ng

Law: The In te rp ret at io n of Leg al Tex ts 17 4 (West 20 12 ). The ot he r po ss ib le read in g
of th e te rm is th at “ as so ci at e m em

be r” m ean s so m eb od y who as so ci at es wit h a ct ua l

-7

-ga ng m em

be rs

. Thi s read in g su ffer s fro m th e sa m e va gu en es s pr ob le m s we di sc us se d

ab ov e wit h res pe ct to th e us ag e of “ ga ng .” Su ch a read in g “co ul d ev en pr ecl ud e [W as hin gto n] fr om m ee tin g w it h hi s pr ob at io n of fic er” be cau se it en co m

pa ss es “ tho se
who m ay ha ve on ly a so ci al co nn ect io n to an in di vi du al ga ng m em be r.” Uni te d

St at es v. J oh ns on , 62 6 F .3d 10 85 , 10 91 (9t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Th ir d, an y so rt of men s re a r eq ui rem en t th at is im po se d by t he fir st se nt en ce

o f t h e co nd it io n— th at th e “ de fen da nt m us t no t kn owi ng ly as so ci at e [wit h ga n g

m em be rs ]”—va ni s h e s i f W as hi ng to n is fo un d in th e “ co m pa ny” of ga ng m em

be rs
whi le weari ng “ cl ot hi ng , co lo rs , or in si gn ia ” of a ga ng

. In th at cas e, th e co nd it io n

st at es th at “ th e Co ur t wil l pr es um e th at th is as so ci at io n was fo r pu rp os e of

pa rti ci pa ti ng in ga ng act iv it ie s.” Thi s pr es um pt io n ru ns sm ack ag ai ns t th e Su pr em e
Co ur t’s ad m on it io n th at “ as so ci at io n” sh ou ld n o t b e read to in cl ud e “ in ci de nt al

co nt act s.” Arc in ie ga v. Fre em an , 40 4 U.S. 4 , 4 (1 97 1) (pe r cu ria m ).

W e va cat e Sp eci al Co nd it io n #3 an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t to ad dr es s th e

co ns ti tu ti on al de fic ie nc ie s we ha ve no te d. On rem an d, if a refa sh io ne d co nd it io n is

im po se d, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld m ak e ex pl ic it th e men s r e a n eces sa ry fo r a
vi ol at io n. Cf

. Sta pl es v. Un it ed Sta te s, 51 1 U.S. 6 00 , 6 06 (1 99 4) (n ot in g “ of fen se s
th at req ui re n o men s r ea ge ne ral ly are di sf av or ed ”).

V.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm in pa rt an d rem an d na r r owl y fo r rese nt en ci ng co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-