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 4-25-2008 

# U SA v . Aquino 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 . 07-2547

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 anova . 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 ll anova 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 an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Aquino " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1326. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1326T h e H o n o ra b le P a u l R . M ich e l, C h ief Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * fort he Feder al C i r cui t , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 2547 UN I TED STATES v. NI CH OL AS AQUI NO, A ppel 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 00287) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 16, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and M I C H E L , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 25, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

M I C H E L , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge. D e f e n d a n t N ich o las A q u in o a p p e a ls f ro m th e se n ten c in g o rd e r f o llo w in g h is convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o comm i tr obberyaff ect i ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce a nd b ra n d ish in g f

ire a rm s d u rin g a c rim e o f v io len c e . B e c a u se w e d isc e rn n o h a rm f u l er ro r in the D istri ct C o u rt ’s sen tenc ing o rde r, w e w il l aff irm the o rde r. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e r eci t e onl ythos e fa ct s centr al t o our anal y s i s . A qui no w as i ndi ct ed bya gr and j uryforfi ve count s of r obberyaff ect i ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce, cons pi r acyt o comm i tthos e r obber i es , and tw o count s of br andi s hi ng fi r earm s i n fur t her ance of thos e cr i m es of vi ol ence . A ft err eac hi ng a pl ea agr eementw i t h t he governm ent , A qui no pl ed gui l t yt o one of the fi r earm s char ges and the cons pi r acychar ge. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, A qui no obj ect ed t o s ever al as pect s of the pr es ent ence in v e stig a tio n re p o rt (“ P S R ” ). F irst, h e o b jec ted to a tw o -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t f o r b o d ily i nj ur yi nfl i ct ed on a s t or e empl oy ee on J ul y23, 2005, dur i ng the r obberyof W ei s M arket i n C ar l i s l e, Penns y l vani a, on t he gr ound t hatthe i nj ur i es w er e t oo m i nort o w arr antthe enhanc ement . H e nextobj ect ed t o a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforbodi l yi nj urys uffe r ed by t he managerof Si err a M adr e R es t aur anti n M echa ni cs bur g, Penns y l vani a, dur i ng a r obberyon A ugus t21, 2005, on t he gr ounds thatthe i nj uryw as notcaus ed byA qui no but b y h i s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r , P a u l B u t l e r , a n d th a tth e a s s a u l tw a s n o tf o r e s e e a b l e . F i n a l l y,3

Aq u i n o a l s o o b

j e c t e d t o a f

o u r - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tf o ra b d u c t i o n o f

th e ma n a g e ra n d t wo e m p lo y e e s d u rin g th e S ier ra M a d re R e sta u ra n t ro b b e ryo n th e g ro u n d th a t f o rc in g p e o p le t o m ove a s hor tdi s t ance w i t hi n a s i ngl e pr emi s es does notcons t i tut e abduc t i on. T he D istri ct C o u rtalso h ea rd testi m o n yfro m A q u ino as w ell as th e m an ag er o f th e S ierra M adr e R es t aur ant . T he managert es t i fi ed thathe and tw o of hi s empl oy ees w er e out s i de t he r es t aur antw hen theyw er e ac cos t ed byB ut l erand A qui no, w ho for ced them t o go back i ns i de atgunpoi nt . H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatB ut l erhi thi m on t he hea d s ever al t i m es w i t h a g u n d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound forthe governm entas t o al l of A qui no’ s obj ect i ons . T he C o u rt se n ten c e d A q u in o to se v e n y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t f o r th e f ire a rm s o f

f e n se , w h ich is t he s t atut or ym andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence and w hi ch i s r equi r ed t o be s erved co n sec u ti v ely . 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c); U . S . S . G . § 3 D 1 . 1 (b)(1 ). F o ll o w ing the P S R ’s recom m end at i on s as t o the con spi racycharge, the D i stri ctC ou rtaccep t ed the offe nse l evel cal cul at i on forthe Si err a M adr e R es t aur antr obbery( t hi r t y - one) as the hi ghes tof the robberi es, al so accep t i ng t he incr ease byfou r forthe o t her fou r r ob beri es and a decrease byt hr ee f

oracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yfora fi nal offe ns e l evel of thi r t y - t w o forthe cons pi r acyoffe ns e as a w hol e. See U . S. S. G . §§ 1B 1. 2( d) , 3D 1. 2( d) , 3E 1. 1. T he gui del i ne r ange f

ort hi s offe ns e l evel and A qui no’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as 188- 235 m o n ths f o r th e c o n sp ir ac ych arg e. B u t th e D istri ct C o u rtalso g ran ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e due t o A qui no’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o t he4

governm ent , s ent enci ng hi m t o 136 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entforthe cons pi r acyoffe ns e for a t ot al of 220 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entforboth t he fi r earm s ( s even y ear s , orei ght y - four m on t hs) and co nspir acyoff enses. II. A q u in o a rg u e s th re e e rr o rs o n th e p a rt o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt in its s e n te n c in g o rd e r. Fi r s t , A qui no as s er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byacc ept i ng the abduc t i on enhanc ement b e c a u s e f

o rc in g p e o p le to m o v e w ith in a s in g le p re m is e s d o e s n o t c o n s titu te a b d u c tio n . Second, A qui no ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byenhanc i ng the off ens e l evel fort he Si err a M adr e R es t aur antr obberyforbodi l yi nj uryw hen no evi dence w as pr es ent ed that th e m a n a g e r’s in

ju rie s w e re p a in f

u l, ob v io u s, o r o n e f

o r w h ich a p e rso n w o u ld o rd in a rily s eek medi cal t r eatm ent . Fi nal l y , A qui no s t at es thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byenhanc i ng th e o f f e n se lev e l f

o r th e C a rlisle W e is M a rk e t ro b b e ryf o r b o d ilyin

ju ryw h e n th e v ictim recei ved on l ym i no r i njur i es. 1. A s th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted , the G u id e lin e s p ro v id e a n e x a m p le o f a b d u c tio n in its d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e t e r m: “A bduct ed” means t hata vi ct i m w as for ced t o acc om panyan off endert o a di ffe r entl ocat i on. Forexampl e, a bank r obber ’ s for ci ng a bank t el l erfr om t he bank i nt o a get aw aycarw oul d cons t i tut e an a bduct i on. U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 1 ap p . n . 1 (A ). H ere , A q u ino an d B u tl er f o rce d the S ierra M ad re R es t aur antm anage rand empl oy ees t o acc om panythem from out s i de the r es t aur antback5

inside at gu n p o int. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the f ac ts of this case are i ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he G ui del i nes ’ exampl e and thus thatthe four - l evel enhanc ement f o r a b d u c tio n w a s a p p ro p ria telya p p lied h e re . A q u in o c ites n o c o n tra rya u th o ritya n d , in fac t , conce des t hatours i s t erci r cui t s have a l s o aff i r m ed the appl i cat i on of the abduc t i on en h an ce m en t i n sim il ar c ase s. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . H ickm an , 1 5 1 F . 3 d 4 4 6 , 4 6 2 (5th C ir . 1998) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T ay l or , 128 F. 3d 1105, 1110- 11 ( 7th C i r . 1997) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. W hoot en, 279 F. 3d 58, 61 ( 1s tC i r . 2002) ; U ni t ed St at es v. H aw ki ns , 87 F. 3d 7 2 2 , 7 2 7 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ); U n it ed S tat es v . E lkins, 16 F . 3 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 3 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). 2. W e n e x t tu rn to A q u in o ’s o b je c tio n s to th e e n h a n c e m e n ts f o r b o d ily in

ju ry. W e fi r s tnot e that , unl i ke the tw o ot herobj ect i ons ar gued on appe al , A qui no di d notr ai s e at s ent enci ng t he obj ect i on t o t he bodi l yi nj uryenhanc ementforthe Si err a M adr e R es t aur ant r obberyt hathe now as s er t s . R ather , A qui no’ s onl yobj ect i on t o t hi s enhanc ementat se n ten c in g w a s th a t th e in ju ryw a s in f

licte d n o t b yh im b u t b yB u tler, a n d th a t h is se n ten c e sh o u ld n o t b e a f f e c ted b yB u tler’ s c o n d u c t b e c a u se it w a s n o t f o re se e a b le in th is r egar d. A qui no now abandons t hatobj ect i on and i ns t ead a r gues thatthe governm ent fai l ed t o s how t hatt he manager ’ s i nj ur i es w er e s i gni fi cantenough forthe enha ncement un der the G uidel i nes. B eca us e thi s obj ect i on w as notr ai s ed ats ent enci ng, w e appl ya pl ai n err or s t andar d of r evi ew . U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U . S. 725, 731- 32 ( 1993) ; U ni t ed St at es6

v. D r agon, 471 F. 3d 501, 505 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T o r ever s e, w e mustfi nd thatthe err orw as c lea r o r o b v io u s, a f

f e c ted th e su b sta n tial rig h ts o f th e D e f e n d a n t, an d “ se rio u slya f f e c ts t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” O l ano, 507 U . S. at 732- 36; D r agon, 471 F. 3d at505. W e do notdi s cern s uch an e r r orher e. T he G ui del i nes defi ne “bodi l yi nj ury ” as “anys i gni fi canti nj ury ; e. g. , an i nj uryt hat i s pai nful and obvi ous , ori s of a type forw hi ch medi cal tr eatm entor di nar i l yw oul d be s ought . ” U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 1 app. n. 1( B ) . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the managerof the S ierra M ad re R estau ran t t esti fied that h e w as h itrep ea tedlyo n h is he ad w ith a g u n . In addi t i on, t he PSR i ndi cat ed thatm edi cal tr eatm entw as offe r ed t o t he manager( t hough he re f u se d it). T h e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t th e se f

a c ts s u p p o rte d a f

in d in g o f b o d ily injuryw ith in the m ea n ing o f th e G u idelines is no t plain erro r. A q u in o re lies p rin c ip a llyo n U n ited S tate s v . G u e rre ro , 1 6 9 F .3 d 9 3 3 , 9 4 6 -4 7 (5 th C i r . 1999) , w her e a s ent ence w as vaca t ed and the ca s e r emanded on t he gr ound t hatan enhanc ementforbodi l yi nj ur yw as appl i ed i n err or . W e hol d t hatG uerr er o does not compel a di ffe r entr es ul t . Fi r s t , t he G uerr er o panel expr es s l ydecl i ned t o r evi ew the b o d il yinjuryasp ec t of

the s en tenc e u n d er the m o re d ef ere n ti al plain e rror stan d ard . In addi t i on, t he Fi fth C i r cui tr emar ked thatevi dence of the s ever i t yof an a s s aul tm ay su p p o rta f

ind ing o f b o d il yinjuryw h en , fo r th at typ e o f a tt ac k , “the resu lt ing injury fol l ow s aut om at i cal l yand i s obvi ous . ” I d. at947. H er e, i tw as notpl ai n err orforthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o vi ew r epea t ed bea t i ngs t o t he hea d w i t h a gun as s uch an a t t ack. See7

U n ited S tate s v . P e rk in s, 8 9 F .3 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 8 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t h itt in g a v ictim in th e h e a d w ith a g u n a n d k ick in g h im in th e f a c e , thu s in

ju rin g h im , w a s s u f

f icie n t to su p p o rta f

ind ing that the in

juryw as sig n ifi ca n t eno u g h to w arran t th e b o d il yinjury en h an ce m en t un d er the G u idelines ). 3. L a stly , w e d isc e rn n o re v e rsib le e rro r a s to th e tw o -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t f o r b o d ily in ju ry re c o m m e n d e d b yth e P S R f o r t h e C a rl is le W e is M a rk e t r o b b e ry. U n d e r U .S .S .G . § 1B 1. 2( d) , t he cons pi r acyoffe ns e w as tr eat ed as fi ve s epar at e count s of cons pi r acy c o rr e s p o n d in g to e a c h o f th e f iv e ro b b e ri e s f

o r t h e p u rp o s e o f

c a lc u la tin g o f

f e n s e le v e ls . D ue t o t he pr ohi bi t i on on combi ni ng r obberyoffe ns es cover ed byU . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 1, eac h c o u n t’ s o f

f e n s e le v e l w a s c a lc u la te d s e p a ra te ly. U .S .S .G . § 3 D 1 .2 (d ). U n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3D 1. 4, t he hi ghes tof thes e off ens e l evel s — t hi r t y - one forthe Si err a M adr e R es t aur ant r obbery— w as t hen t aken a s t he bas e t o cal cul at e the combi ned off ens e l evel foral l of the off enses. A qu i no vo i ces no o bject i on t o these procedu res . Si nce w e fi nd no err ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s eval uat i on of the off ens e l evel fort he Si err a M adr e R es t aur antr obbery , w e s ee no e r r ori n bas i ng the combi ned off ens e l evel on th a t ro b b e ryb e c a u se its o f f e n se lev e l w a s th e h ig h e st o f th e f iv e ro b b e rie s. T h u s, e v e n if w e w e re to f

in d e rro r in th e D istric t C o u rt’s b o d ilyin ju rye n h a n c e m e n t o f

th e C a rlisle W eis M ark et rob b ery ’s of fe n se lev el, su ch an erro r w o u ld b e h arm less b ec au se th e S ierra M a d re R e sta u ra n t ro b b e ryw o u ld still h a v e th e h ig h e st o f f e n se lev e l an d th e C a rlisle W e is8

M a rk e t ro b b e ryw o u ld still co u n t f o r o n e u n it t o w a rd th e c o m b in e d o f f e n se lev e l. A s a re su lt , w e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s sen tenc ing o rde r.