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 9-29-2008 

# U SA v . H ogue 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 . 07-1690

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 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 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 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 . H o gue " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 472. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/472NOT 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- 1690
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . W AY NE H OG UE, a / k / a I M AN W ADI R, a / k / a S HAHDE E D B AY,

W ayne H ogue, 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. 06- cr - 00125) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Ti m ot hyJ
. Savage
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

( fi l ed: Sept ember29, 2008 )

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udgeJ ur i s di ct i on i s pr operpur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 1 2 Wa yn e Ho g u e a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n o n 1 5 f i r e a r ms t r a f

f i c k i n g c h a r g e s . He al l eges i nfi r m i t i es i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr apmenti ns t ruct i on. W e di s agr ee a nd t hus
a f f i r m. 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f

th e c a s e , w e n o te o n ly th o s e f a c ts n e c e s s a ry to o u r a n a lysis
. A ccor di ngl y , w e l i m i tourdi s cus s i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s entr apmenti ns t ruct i on, w hi ch
w a s a s f o llo w s: W a yn e H o g u e a ss e rts th a t h e w a s e n tra p p e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t to comm i tt he cr i m es al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm ent . I f he w as entr apped byt he g o v e rn m e n t, th e d e f

e n d a n t m a yn o t b e c o n v icte d o f th e c rim e s. A p e rso n is entr apped w hen thatper s on has no pr evi ous i nt entordi s pos i t i on or w i l l i ngnes s t o comm i tt he cr i m es char ged and i s i nduced orper s uaded by law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs o r b yth e ir a g e n ts w h o in c lu d e in f o rm a n ts to com m i tt he o ffen se. A person i s not ent rapped w hen t hat per son h as a pr evi ous i nt entordi s pos i t i on orw i l l i ngnes s t o comm i tt he cr i m e cha r ged a n d law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs o r th e ir a g e n ts m e re lyp ro v id e w h a t ap p e a rs to b e a n o p p o rtu n ityto co m m itan o ff en se. Itis no t entrap m en t fo r a governm entagentt o pr et end t o be s om eone e l s e and then t o engage or at t empt t o engage , ei t herper s onal l yort hr ough an i nfor m ant , i n an unl aw ful t r ans act i on ori n an unl aw ful actw i t h a per s on w ho has a pr evi ous i nt entor di s pos i t i on orw i l l i ngnes s t o engage i n t he unl aw ful t r ans act i on ori n t he u n la w f u l a c t. I n det erm i ni ng t he ques t i on of entr apment , y ou s houl d cons i deral l of t he evi dence r ece i ved i n t hi s cas e conc erni ng t he i nt ent i ons and di s pos i t i on of the def

endant , W ayne H ogue, befor e he c ame i nt o cont actw i t h t he l aw enfor cementoffi cer s ort hei ragent s and al s o t he natur e and the degr ee of in d u c e m e n t o r p e rsu a sio n p ro v id e d b yth e law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs o r th e irD e f

e n se c o u n se l o b

jec ted to th e in iti a l in stru c tio n , sa y in g th a t, “o n re a so n a b le d o u b t, 2 th e C o u rt re p e a te d ly sta te d th a t th e yh a v e to p ro v e e a c h e le m e n t o f th e c ri m e s c h a rg e d
. B ecause o f t he en t rapm ent defense, predi sposi t i on al so has t o b e on e of the t hings, al m ost lik e a n e lem e n t p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” A p p . 4 1 . C o u n se l d id n o t o b jec t to t he s ubs equentr er eadi ng. W hi l e H ogue admi t s t hatt hi s acqui es cenc e – es peci al l yw hen c o u p led w ith th e lac k o f sp e c if icityin th e in iti a l o b

jec tio n – m a ylim it o u r re v iew to p lain e rr o r, s ee, e. g. , C ooperD is t . C o. v. A m ana R ef r iger at i on, I

nc. , 1 8 0 F
. 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 (3d C ir
. 1999) , w e dec l i ne t o addr es s t he i s s ue bec aus e the i ns t ruct i on amount ed t o nei t heran abus e of di s cr et i on noran i ns t ance of pl ai n err or . W e al s o decl i ne t o cons i dert he G ov ernm ent’ s ar gu m ent that an entr apm ent i nst ruct i on w as not j ust i fi ed in the fir st in s ta n c e a n d its re la te d a rg u m e n t th a t th e in s tru c tio n w a s to o g e n e ro u s to th e d e f e n d a n t. 3 agen t s. T h e g o v e rn m e n t m u st p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e d e f e n d a n t, W ayne H ogue, w as notentr apped. T hus , i n or dert o r etur n a ver di ctof gui l t yfort he cr i m es char ged i n t he i ndi ctm ent , y ou m us tfi nd bey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e d e f e n d a n t, W a yn e H o g u e , w a s d isp o se d to com m i tt he cri m es charged b efore being ap proach ed b ygo vernm ent agents . A p p . 3 5 M idw aythro u g h their de li b era ti o n s, the ju ryso u g h t cl arificati o n o n this m att er; t he D i s t r i ctC our tr er ead the i ns t ruct i on i n i t s ent i r ety . T he j ur ys ubs equent l yr etur ned a 2
v e rd ic t o f

g u ilty o n 1 5 o f

th e 1 7 c o u n ts c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t.

II. H ogue cl ai m s t hatt he entr apmenti ns t ruct i on fai l ed t o focus t he j ur yadequa t el yon “the per i od of t i m e pr i ort o t he governm entagent ’ s i nt ervent i on i n or dert o det erm i ne
w hethert he def

endantw as s o i ncl i ned t o comm i tt he cr i m e bef or e theyappr oache d” H ogue B r . at7. W e di s agr ee. T he j ur yw as t ol d t o “cons i der
. . . t he i nt ent i ons and di s pos i t i on of the def

endant
. . . befor e he c ame i nt o cont actw i t h t he l aw enfor cement offi cer s ort hei ragent s ; ” that“[a ] per s on i s entr apped w hen thatper s on has no pr evi ous4

in ten t o r d isp o sitio n o r w ill in g n e ss to c o m m it th e c rim e s c h a rg e d ;” a n d th a t “[ a ] p e rso n is
n o t en tra p p e d w h e n th a t p e rso n h a s a p re v io u s in ten t o r d isp o sitio n o r w ill in g n e ss to
comm i tt he cr i m e cha r ged. ” Even H ogue ac know l edges t hatt he j ur yw as t ol d t o “foc us on t he t i m e bef

or e the age ntcame i nt o cont actw i t h [hi m ] ” w hen maki ng t he entr apment
a s s e s s m e n t. Id
. at8. I n s um , w e bel i eve thatt he i ns t ruct i on di r ect ed the j ur y ’ s at t ent i on to th e a p p ro p ri a te tim e p e ri o d
. In th e a lt ern ati v e, H o g u e a rgu es th at th e ins tru cti o n w as f law ed b ec au se “ the c o u rt fai l ed t o adequa t el ydefi ne . . . i nducement
. ” Id
. at9. A gai n w e di s agr ee. T he D i s t r i ct C our tt ol d t he j ur or s t hatt heycoul d notconvi cti f H ogue l acke d “pr evi ous i nt entor di s pos i t i on orw i l l i ngnes s t o comm i tt he cr i m es char ged and [ w as ] i nduced orper s uaded byl aw enfor cementoffi cer s orbyt hei ragent s w ho i ncl ude i nfor m ant s t o comm i tt he offe ns e. ” I n ot herw or ds , t he D i s t r i ctC our tas ked the j ur yt o det erm i ne w hether“the G overnm ent ’ s dece pt i on actual l yi m pl ant [ed] t he cr i m i nal des i gn i n t he mi nd of the d e f e n d a n t,” a n d to ld it to a c q u it if s o . T h is is a p ro p e r s ta te m e n t o f th e la w . U

ni t ed S ta tes v . R u ss e ll , 4 1 1 U .S . 4 2 3 , 4 3 5 -3 6 (1 9 7 3 ); accor d U ni t ed Stat es v. Lakhani , 480 F. 3d 171, 178- 79 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e the i ns t ruct i on w as bot h cl earand
c o rr e c t, it o f

f e rs n o b a s is f

o r r e lie f
. III . F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , w e a f f ir m .