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 4-19-2010 

# U SA v . M alcolm M cMi lle r 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 . 09-2916

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_2010

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 2010 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 . M alc o lm M cMi lle r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1487. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1487H on. L oui s H . Pol l ak, Seni or J udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C our tfort he East ern D i s t ri ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. NOT 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- 2916

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M ALCOLM M c M I LL ER, a l s o k n o wn a s S HAKE M alco lm M cM il ler, 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 2- 00- cr - 00069- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. A l an N . B l och Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges , and

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge

* ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 19, 2010)2 OP I NI ON S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A p p e llan t M a lco lm M c M ill e r w a s a rre ste d f o r f a lse im p riso n m e n t an d b a ttery i n G eor gi a w hi l e s ervi ng a fi ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e af t ers ervi ng a pr i s on s ent ence forpos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne. U pon l earni ng of M cM i l l er ’ s arr es t , t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce i n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof P en n sy lvan ia, w h ere h e w as c o n v ict ed o f h is crack o ff en se, no ti fied the D istri ct C o u rt th a t it h a d re a s o n to b e lie v e M c M ille r h a d v io la te d a c o n d itio n o f h is s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . A tt he r evoca t i on hear i ng hel d i n t he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, M cM i l l erdeni ed t he al l egat i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatM cM i l l erhad comm i t t ed the off ens es of fal se i m pri sonm ent and b at t ery , bo t h in vi olat i on of G eorgi a l aw . T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so found thatt he off

ens e of f al s e i m pr i s onm entunderG eor gi a l aw w as a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” and thus a G r ade A vi ol at i on under§ 7B 1. 1 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . A s a r es ul t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr evoked M cM i l l er ’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e and sent enced him t o a p ri son term of f i ft y -one m on t hs. M cM i l l er cont end s that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed b oth i n d eno m i nati ng fal se i m pr i s onm entunderG eor gi a l aw as a cr i m e of vi ol ence and i n hol di ng thatthe evi dence s uppor t ed the fi ndi ng t hathe w as gui l t yof thatoffe ns e. M cM i l l eral s o cont ends thatt he D istric t C o u rt f

a iled to e m p lo ya c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h a n d im p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d h is conducti n deci di ng w hetherfal s e i m pr i s onm enti s a cr i m e of vi ol ence . W e ar e not3

per s uaded. I . Fac t ualBackg r ound A f ter M c M ill e r w a s re lea se d f ro m p riso n , h e m o v e d to G e o rg ia to re sid e w ith h is fami l y . A ccor di ng t o a pol i ce r eport , M cM i l l erconfr ont ed hi s w i fe, M ar l o M cM i l l er (“M arlo” ), at he r w o rkp lace ab o u t his susp ici o n s o f h er inf idelity . T h e p o li ce rep o rt s t at ed thatM cM i l l err efus ed t o l etM ar l o l eave heroffi ce, w her e he “ s pentthe nexthour and fi ft een mi nut es as s aul t i ng herbypunchi ng, ki cki ng, s pi t t i ng on, and choki ng her . ” S u p p . A p p . at 2. T h e re p o rtalso stat ed that there af ter M cM il ler “p u t [M arlo] in the ca r, a n d t h e y d r o v e a r o u n d a s h e c o n t i n u e d t o ye l l a n d h i th e r . ” S u p p . A p p . a t2 . E v e n tu a l l y, M ar l o convi nced M cM i l l ert o l etherus e the r es t r oom ata publ i c park and then us ed a pas s erby ’ s m obi l e t el ephone t o phone the pol i ce, atw hi ch poi ntM cM i l l erfl ed. M cM i l l erw as char ged w i t h fal s e i m pr i s onm entand batt ery . T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce i n the W est ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a t hen subm i t t ed a P et i t i on on S up ervi sed R el ease not i fy i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hati thad r eas on t o bel i eve thatM cM i l l erhad vi ol at ed the t erm of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e r equi r i ng thathe “s hal l notcomm i tanotherfede r al , s t at e, or l ocal cr i m e. ” Supp. A pp. at1. A tt he r evoca t i on hear i ng, aft erM cM i l l erdeni ed the al l egat i ons thathe had p h y sic a llya b u se d h is w if e a n d k e p t h e r b o th in h e r o f f ice a n d in th e c a r a g a in st h e r w ill , t he G overnm entputon t he t es t i m onyof the off i cerof the C ol um bus , G eor gi a, Pol i ce D epart m entw ho had come t o M ar l o’ s as s i s t ance . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o i s s ue an or der 1 r evoki ng M c M i l l er ’ s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e under18 U . S. C . §§ 3231 and 3583( e) ( 3) . T hi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on t o deci de the ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a)(3). 4 M cM i l l er“conf

i ned ordet ai ned [M ar l o] w i t houtl egal author i t yand i n vi ol at i on of her per s onal l i ber t yw hen . . . he l ocked the doort o heroffi ce, notal l ow i ng hert o l eave , and began punc hi ng and ki cki ng her ” and w hen “he t ook heri n hi s aut om obi l e and c ont i nued t o verbal l yand phy s i cal l yas s aul ther . ” A pp. at37b. T he D i stri ctC ou rtfurther fou nd that fal se i m pri sonm ent unde r G eorgi a l aw i s a “cr i m e of vi ol ence , ” r eas oni ng t hat“fa l s e i m pr i s onm entot herw i s e i nvol ves conductt hat pr es ent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj uryt o another . ” A pp. at38b ( ci t i ng U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 2 (a)). In li g h t of it s fin d ing , the D istri ct C o u rtd esig n ated M cM il ler’s vi ol at i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e condi t i ons as “G r ade A , ” the mosts er i ous cat egoryof vi ol at i on underU . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 1. I tr evoked M cM i l l er ’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e and s ent ence d hi m t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof fi fty - one mont hs , the l ow es ts ent ence under t he rel evan tG uidel i nes range. M cM i l l er appeals . 1 I I . D i s cus s i on M c M i l l e rs t a t e s t h a twe s h o u l d “ r e v i e w d e n o v o wh e t h e ra p a r t i c u l a rc r i me cons t i tut es a ‘ cr i m e of vi ol ence . ’ ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at2. T he G overnm ent , on t he other han d, argues t hat because M cM i l l er di d n ot obj ectt o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s fi nd i ng that fal se i m pr i s onm entw as a cr i m e of vi ol ence , “i ti s M cM i l l er ’ s bur den t o es t abl i s h pl ai n err or . ”5

A ppel l ee’ s B r . at3. W e nee d notr es ol ve thi s di s put e bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not err , m uch l es s pl ai nl ys o, and ours t andar d of r evi ew has no bear i ng on t he out come of th is a p p e a l. M cM i l l erar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n hol di ng thatfal s e i m pr i s onm ent u n d er G eo rgia law is a crim e o f v iolen ce an d there fo re a G rad e A v iolati o n o f M cM il ler’s supervi sed rel ease con dit i on s. A pp el l ant’ s B r. at10 . U nd er the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, t he term “cri m e of v i olence” m eans: an yo ff en se u n d er f

ed era l or stat e law , p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a t erm exce edi ng one y ear , t hat. . . ( 1) has as an el ementthe us e, at t empt ed us e, ort hr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on of another , or( 2) is b u rg la ry o f

a d w e llin g , a rs o n , o r e x to rt io n , in v o lv e s u s e o f e x p lo s iv e s , or other w is e i nvolves conduct thatpr es ent

s a s er i ous pot ent i alr is k of phys i cal i njury to a no ther. U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .2 (a ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 1 cmt . n. 2 ( expl ai ni ng t hatt he def

i ni t i on of “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” forpurpos es of cl as s i fy i ng vi ol at i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e condi t i ons i s coext ens i ve w i t h t he meani ng of thatphr as e as pr ovi ded i n § 4B 1. 2) . Forourpurpos es t oday , w e mustfocus on t he por t i on of § 4B 1. 2( a) i t al i ci zed a bove, w hi ch has been de nom i nat ed the “r es i dual cl aus e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 8 7 F .3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). “W e gene r al l yus e a c at egor i cal appr oach t o cl as s i fya pr i orconvi ct i on. ” I d. at208 ( ci t i ng Tayl orv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 , 6 0 0 -0 2 (1 9 9 0 )) . “ U n d e r t h a t a p p ro a c h , a c o u rt m u st a sk ‘w h e th e r th e e lem e n ts o f th e o f f e n se a re o f

th e typ e th a t w o u ld ju stif yits in c lu sio n w ith in th e re sid u a l [ c lau se ], w ith o u t in q u irin g in to th e sp e c if ic c o n d u c t o f

th is6

par t i cul aroffe nder . ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng Jam es v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 0 U . S . 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 (20 0 7 )) (em ph asi s om i t t ed). T o d et erm i ne w hethera con vict i on un der G eorgi a’s fal se i m pr i s onm ents t atut e ca t egor i cal l yqual i fi es as a cr i m e of vi ol ence , w e begi n byanal y zi ng th e s ta tu to ry te x t. Johns on , 587 F. 3d at208. T he p ert i nen tst atutorydefini t i on of “F al se I m pri sonm ent” i s as fol l ow s: A per s on comm i t s the off ens e of f al s e i m pr i s onm entw hen, i n vi ol at i on of t he per s onal l i ber t yof another , he arr es t s , confi nes , ordet ai ns s uch per s on w i t h o u tl e g a l a u t h o r i t y. G a. C o d e A n n . § 1 6 -5-4 1 (a). U ndert he Supr eme C our t ’ s opi ni on i n B egay v . U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t . 1581 (2 0 0 8 ), a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e typ ic a lly re q u ir e s p u rp o s e f u l c o n d u c t. See J

ohns on , 587 F. 3d a t 2 1 4 (f in d in g th a t “in lig h t o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re p re se n tatio n th a t itd o e s n o t se e k to define” con vict i on s as cr i m es of v i olence “t o the ext ent [theyare] prem i sed on reckl ess co n d u ct, ” o n lyp u rpo sef u l, k n o w ing co n d u ct ca n su ff ice). E xami nat i on of the G eor gi a s t atut e l eads us t o concl ude thatfal s e i m pr i s onm ent un der G eorgi a l aw do es typical l yrequi re purposefu l con du ct . T he w ords “arr est s, confi nes , [and] det ai ns ” al l i m pl yknow i ng, i nt ent i onal act s , r atherthan r eckl es s nes s or n e g lig e n c e . See G a. C ode A nn. § 16- 5- 41( a) . I ndeed, M cM i l l erdoes notas s ertthat reckl ess orneg l i gen tcon du ctcou l d rende r an i nd i vidual gu i l t yun der G eorgi a’s fal se i m pr i s onm ents t atut e. A t th e n ex t st ep u n d er B egay , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherfal s e i m pr i s onm ent7

p re s e n ts a s e ri o u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to s o m e o n e o th e r t h a n th e p e rp e tr a to r. See 128 S. C t . at1585. A gai n, w e r es ol ve thatques t i on i n t he af fi r m at i ve. A s the D i s tr i ct C ou rtno t ed, “[w ]hi l e t he u se of p hy si cal force i s not an el em ent of t his cri m e, fal se im p ri so n m en t . . . inv o lves co n d u ct th at pre sen ts a seriou s p o tential ri sk o f p h y sical i n jury t o another[bec aus e] . . . [e] ven i f [a ] per s on i s nothel d byfor ce, ther e i s a s t r ong lik e lih o o d th a t a p e rso n w o u ld u se f o rc e to re sis t b e in g h e ld a n d p h y sic a l in ju ryw o u ld ensue.” A pp . at38 b. Indeed , G eorgi a cases show that conv i ct i on s und er G eorgi a’s fal se i m pri sonm ent s t atute i nv olve scenari os i n w hich the o ffen se cond uct poses a ser i ou s r i sk of pot ent i al i nj ur ybeca us e, j us tas t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound, the vi ct i m oft en us es phy s i cal f o rc e in a n a tte m p t to re s is t c o n f in e m e n t. S e e R e

y n o ld s v . S ta te , 497 S. E . 2d 580, 583 ( G a. C t . A pp. 1998) ( perpetr at ori nduced vi ct i m t o al l ow hi m i nt o hercarand then made unw ant ed s exual advanc es t ow ar d herand i m peded he regr es s fr om the ca r , w hi ch l ed the vi ct i m t o “fi ght [ ] t o es cape ”) . M or eover , m os tG eor gi a fa l s e i m pr i s onm entcas es i nvol ve f a r m o re v io le n t a n d a g g re s s iv e b e h a v io r. See, e. g. , P ier c e v . S ta te , 687 S. E . 2d 185, 190 ( G a. C t . A pp. 2009) ( defe ndant“gr abbed the vi ct i m bythe hai rand dr agged he rfr om ro o m to ro o m . . . w h ile b e a tin g h e r” ); W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 6 7 0 S .E .2 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 2 -3 3 (G a . C t. A pp. 2008) ( perpetr at orr aped vi ct i m i n herhom e then for ced he ri nt o a cl os et , thr eat ened to k il l her if sh e d id n o t st ayin the clos et, an d ti ed the c lose t’ s d o o rs w ith a c o rd). H ow ever , t he B egay C our tcl ar i fi ed thatnot“eve r ycr i m e that‘ pr es ent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj ur yt o another ’ ” qual i fi es as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . 128 S. C t . at8

1 5 8 5 (c itatio n a n d e m p h a sis o m itt e d ). R a th e r, th e c rim e m u st b e “ sim ilar, in k in d a s w e ll a s in d e g re e o f

ri s k p o s e d ,” to th e e n u m e ra te d o f f e n s e s . I d. B egay fur t herexpl ai ned that an o ffen se i s si m i l ar i n k i nd t o the enu m erat ed o ffen ses i f i t“t ypical l yi nv olve[s] purpos eful , ‘ vi ol ent , ’ and ‘ aggr es s i ve’ conduct . . . . ” I d. at1586. Form anyof the re a so n s s tate d a b o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e typ ica l f a lse im p riso n m e n t co n v ictio n in G e o rg ia c o u rts is b a se d u p o n p u rp o se f u l, vio len t, an d a g g re ss iv e c o n d u c t. M c M ill e r a rg u e s th a t irre sp e c tiv e o f w h e th e r f

a lse im p riso n m e n t u n d e r G e o rg ia l aw cons t i tut es a cr i m e of vi ol ence , t he D i s t r i ctC our t“di d notfol l ow [the ca t egor i cal ap p roa ch ] w h en itsp ec ifi ca ll yu sed the f ac ts un d erly ing the o ff

en se . . . . ” A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 1 7 . W e d isa g re e . T h e “ f o rm a l ca teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h ” re q u ire s c o u rts to lo o k “ ‘o n ly t o t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on[ ] of the pr i oroffe ns e[ ] ’ and [c our t s ] m aynot‘ cons i derot her evi dence ’ . . . i ncl udi ng, ‘ t he part i cul arfac t s under l y i ng [a] convi ct i on[. ] ’ ” Si ngh v. A sh c ro ft , 383 F. 3d 144, 147- 48 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Tayl or , 4 9 5 U . S . at 60 0 ). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatfal s e i m pr i s onm enti s a cr i m e of vi ol ence under t he G ui del i nes and i ts t at ed thati t“mustappl ythe form al cat egor i cal appr oach a nd l ook onl yt o t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on of [M cM i l l er ’ s ] cr i m e. ” A pp. at38b. I tthen ana l y zed the G eorgi a st atute, st at i ng t hat “fal se i m pri sonm ent . . . i nv olves cond uct that pr esent s a s e ri o u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to a n o th e r.” A p p . a t 3 8 b (c itin g U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 . 2 (a)). Itcit ed o p inion s fro m o ther c ir cu it s in w h ich o ff en ses s im il ar to G eo rgia’s fal s e i m pr i s onm entw er e hel d t o be cr i m es of vi ol ence .A l t hough w e have s ai d t hat“the ca t egor ical appr oach 2 r equi r es t hatw e fi r s tes t abl i s h forw hi ch s peci fi c cr i m es [a defe nd ant] w as convi ct ed . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R em oi , 404 F. 3d 789, 7 9 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) , th e S u p r e me C o u rt d e c is io n w h ic h e s ta b lis h e d th a t a p p ro a c h , Tayl or , m ent i ons n o s u c h re q u i r e m e n t. A ls o , R em oii s di st i ng uis hab l e as that cas e ar os e i n a cont exti n w hi ch a c onvi ct i on w as r equi r ed bef or e the under l y i ng offe ns e coul d be ana l y zed under the cat egor i cal a p p ro a c h . 4 0 4 F .3 d a t 7 9 2 . 9 T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen s t at ed thati t s “l egal concl us i on” – thatfal s e i m pr i s onm ent un der G eorgi a l aw i s a cr i m e of v i olence – “is bo l st ered bythe p art i cularfact s of t his case w hi ch es t abl i s h t hati n t he cour s e of c om m i tt i ng the off ens e of f al s e i m pr i s onm ent , the d e f e n d a n t b a tte re d h is w if

e c a u s in g s u b s ta n tia l a n d v is ib le p h y s ic a l in ju ry.” A p p . a t 3 9 b . E ven as s um i ng t hats uch l anguage r egar di ng the under l y i ng fac t s i s i nappr opr i at e i n a cat egor i cal anal y s i s , t he G overnm enti s corr ectthati t“mustbe r ead i n cont extw i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s ear l i ers t at ement s w hi ch . . . demonstr at ed i t s under s t andi ng of the cat egor i cal appr oach. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at25. M cM i l l er poi nts ou tt hat he w as arres t ed an d ch arged b ut notcon vict ed o f fals e i m pr i s onm enti n G eor gi a, and ar gues thatt o fi nd thatan off ens e i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence u n d e r th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h , the re m u st b e a n a c tu a l co n v ictio n o f th e o f f e n se . T h is ar gum enti s unavai l i ng. D i s t r i ctcour t s m ayr evoke s upervi s ed r el eas e bas ed on no more than a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t a n o f f e n s e w a s c o m m itte d . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ( 3 ) . I n t h e c o n t e x to f r e v o c a t i o n o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , a f

i n d i n g b y a 2prepon derance o f t he ev i den ce t hat the d efen dan tviol at ed a st at e l aw that pr oscri bes a

cr i m e of vi ol ence i s s uffi ci entforpurpos es of the ca t egor i cal appr oach. W e r ej ectM cM i l l er ’ s ar gum entthatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng thathe comm i t t ed fal s e i m pr i s onm entunderG eor gi a l aw w as uns uppor t ed bythe evi dence adduce d att he r evoca t i on hear i ng. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons i n a r evoca t i on h e a ri n g f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. B l ades t on , 9 4 0 F .2 d 8 7 7 , 8 9 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). A l t hough M ar l o “t es t i fi ed . . . t hatdur i ng the ar gum entheroffi ce doorw as cl os ed [ b u t] . . . n o t lo c k [ e d ] [ a n d th a t M c M ille r] d id [ n o t] p re v e n t h e r f ro m le a v in g ,” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at11, atheri nt ervi ew bythe G eor gi a pol i ce of fi cer , s he s t at ed that“s he w a s h e ld a g a in st h e r w ill f o r o v e r a n h o u r.” A p p . at 1 5 b . A t th e p re lim in a ryh e a rin g in M cM il ler’s st ate c o u rtp roc ee d ing itw as re v ea led th at M arlo h ad rep o rt ed to the o ff icers t hatM cM i l l er“l ocked the doort o t he off i ce notal l ow i ng hert o l eave ” and thathe “dr ove ar ound cont i nual l yy el l i ng and hi t t i ng her[for ] . . . another45 m i nut es . . . . ” A pp. at53b54b. N ot w i t hs t andi ng M ar l o’ s s t at ementthats he di d not“w antt o be the r eas on that [ M c M ill e r] g o e s to jail,” A p p . at 3 0 b , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in f in d in g th a t M c M ill e r “ c o n f in e d o r d e tain e d [ M a rlo ] w ith o u t leg a l au th o ritya n d in vi ol at i on of herper s onal l i ber t y. . . . ” A pp. at37b. I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he above - s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entand s ent ence of the D istric t C o u rt. 10