2005 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 6-30-2005 

# U SA v . N ei l 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 . 04-1745

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_2005

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 2005 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 . N ei l " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 940. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/940NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 04- 1745 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. H A R R Y N A T H A N IE L N E IL , 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 i s t r i ctC our tC r i m . N o. : 01- 139 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr. Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 28, 2005 B e f o re : N Y G A A R D , S M IT H , a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2005 )

OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. H arr yN ei l appea l s hi s convi ct i on bya j ur yof tw o count s of the t ax off ens e of pos s es s i ng unr egi s t er ed fi r earm s . 26 U . S. C . § 5861( d) . Speci fi cal l y , N ei l cont ends t hatT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on 1 i s pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on i m perm i s s i bl yr emoved fr om t he j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on t he det erm i nat i on w hethert he devi ces i n ques t i on – a r etr ofi t t ed hand gr enade and a port i on of a c om m er ci al - gr ade f i r ew or k at t ache d t o a br i ck – w er e “de s t ruct i ve devi ces , ” and thus

“ f ire a rm s,” a s th e ter m is d e f in e d in th e re lev a n t sta tu te, 2 6 U .S .C . § 5 8 4 5 (a ), (f ). W e w ill af firm the c o n v ict ion , b u t r em an d fo r resen tenc ing u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (20 0 5 ). 1 B ecause w e w ri t e sol el yfor the p art i es, w e proceed dir ect l yt o o ur anal y si s. N e il w a s c o n v icte d f

o llo w in g a re trial. H e f irst a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se h e o b jec ted to th e ju ryin stru c tio n u se d in th e f irst tria l, w h ich w a s b e f o re th e sa m e D istric t Ju d g e , it w o u ld h a v e b e e n f

u til e to o b

jec t to th e sa m e in stru c tio n in th e se c o n d trial. T h u s, N e il c o n t e n d s t h a tt h i s C o u r t ’ s r e v i e w o f t h e j u r y i n s t ru c t i o n i s p l e n a r y. R ul e 30 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e pr ovi des t he s t andar d for pr es ervi ng an obj ect i on t o a j ur yi ns t ruct i on:

A par t yw ho obj ect s t o anypor t i on of the i ns t ruct i on ort o a fai l ur e t o gi ve a r eques t ed i ns t ruct i on m us ti nform t he courtof the s p ec ifi c o b

jecti o n an d the g rou n d s fo r th e o b jecti o n b ef

o re t he j ur yr et i r es t o del i ber at e. . . . Fai l ur e t o obj ecti n acc or dance w i t h t hi s rul e pr ecl udes appel l at e r evi ew , exce ptas perm i tt ed u n d er R u le 52 (b). F. R. C R IM . P . 3 0 (d). R evi ew i ng t he j ur ychar ge col l oquybetw een the D i s t r i ctC our t , t he pr os ecut or , and3

d e f e n se c o u n se l, i t is e v id e n t th a t th e o b jec tio n w a s n o t p re se rv e d in th e f irst tria l, re n d e rin g N e il’s f

u til itya rg u m e n t a n o n sta rte r. D e f e n se c o u n se l’s s tate d c o n c e rn s in t epi dl yr eques t i ng t hatnear l yt he ent i r etyof § 5845 be i ncl uded i n t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on w ere “purel yt o b e com plet e” and t o av oid conf usi on am on g the j urors becau se the case i nvol ved devi ces w hi ch “[ ar e] notfi r earm s i n t he or di narys ens e of the w or d. ” C ouns el neveradvanc ed the theoryt hatt he devi ces di d notm eett he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on, and not hi ng i n t he r ecor d offe r s t he l eas ts ugges t i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC ourtw oul d have di s al l ow ed couns el fr om defe ndi ng on t hatgr ound. N ei l cannotnow cherr ypi ck the r ecor d forr andom st at ement s fr om w hi ch one c oul d, w i t h i m agi nat i on, di vi ne thathe o b je c te d to th e ju ry in s tru c tio n . See Palm erv. H of f m an , 3 1 8 U . S . 1 0 9 , 1 1 9 (19 4 3 ) (“In f a irn e ss to th e trial c o u rt a n d to th e p a rties , o b jec tio n s to a c h a rg e m u st b e su f f icie n tly sp e c if ic to b rin g in to f

o c u s th e p re c ise n a tu re o f th e a lleg e d e rro r.”) ; U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jake , 281 F. 3d 123, 130 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “D efe ns e couns el now at t empt s t o par l ayt he s id e b a r c o llo q u yin to a n o b je c tio n th a t h e c o u ld h a v e ra is e d a t s id e b a r, b u t d id n ’t .” ). B eca us e couns el di d notobj ectw i t h s uffi ci ents peci fi ci t yt o s at i s fyR ul e 30( d) , ourr evi ew is fo r plain e rror u n d er F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 5 2 (b). T o b e p lai n erro r un d er R u le 52 (b), T here m ustbe an “err or” that i s “pl ai n” an d that“affect[s] s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” M or eover , R ul e 52( b) l eave s t he dec i s i on t o corr ectt he for fei t ed err orw i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of the cour tof appe al s , and the courts houl d notexer ci s e that dis cret i on un l ess the err or “ser i ou sl yaffect[s] t he fa i rness , in te g ri ty o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s .”T he record sugg est s that narrow i ng t he d efen se w as a strat egic choice bydefe nse 2 c o u n se l. C om par e, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

am m ond , 371 F. 3d 776, 780 ( 11t h C i r . 2004) 3 (w h e th e r a d e v ic e w a s d e s ig n e d f o r u s e a s a w e a p o n is a n e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e ), w ith U ni t ed Stat es v. B eas on , 6 9 0 F . 2 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 5 (5th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) (trea ti n g the s tatu tory ex ce p ti o n s as a ff

irm ati v e d ef

en ses). 4 U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U . S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (19 9 3 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). N ei l focus ed hi s ent i r e def ens e on the ques t i on of w hetherhe pos s es s ed the devi ces , notw hethert he devi ces fi tt he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on. A m ong t he qual i fi er s t o t he “des t ruct i ve devi ce” defi ni t i on, t he s t atut e exc l udes “anydevi ce w hi ch i s nei t herdes i gned norr edes i gned forus e as a w eapon. ” 26 U . S. C . § 5845( f) . T he r ecor d does not defi ni t i vel yr evea l w hyN ei l di d notar gue att r i al t hatt he devi ces w er e not“des i gned for u se a s w ea p o n s, ” a n d w e h av e re jected N eil ’s co n tention that itw as th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s f a u lt. 2 T he C i r cui t s ar e di vi ded overw hethert he l i m i t i ng l anguage cons t i tut es an el ement of the off

ens e oran af

fi r m at i ve def

ens e, butw e nee d notadd thi s C our t ’ s voi ce t o t hat 3 debat e her e. E ven as s um i ng t hatt he qual i fy i ng l anguage i s an el ementof the off ens e, w h ic h w o u ld o rd in a ri ly co n s titu te p la in e rr o r, U ni t ed Stat es v. X

avi er , 2 F. 3d 1281, 1287 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), w e w ill d e c lin e to e x e rc is e o u r p la in e rr o r d is c re tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. H ayw ood , 363 F. 3d 200, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( not i ng t hatt hi s C our thas notadopt ed a pe r s e ru le th a t o m ittin g a n e le m e n t o f a n o f f e n s e f ro m a ju ry in s tru c tio n is p la in e rr o r) . G iv e n th e n a tu re o f

th e d e v ice s in q u e stio n , the “ f a irn e ss , inte g rityo r p u b lic5

r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ” ar e noti n j eopar dy . N ei l ’ s couns el m ayhave de ci ded nott o di s t r actat t ent i on fr om hi s pos s es s i on- bas ed def ens e byar gui ng t he devi ces di d not m e e t th e sta tu to ryd e f

in iti o n , a d e f

e n se h e c o u ld h a v e ra tio n a llyd e ter m in e d h a d little c h a n c e o f

s u c c e s s . See Lewis v. M az urki ew i cz , 915 F. 2d 106, 114 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( not i ng t hat “court s should al l ow for verybroad lat i tud e for strat egic choices ” m ade b ydefe nse couns el ) . I f, i ns t ead, couns el di d notpr es s fori ncl udi ng t he qual i fy i ng l anguage i n t he ju ryin stru c tio n b e c a u se th e d e f e n se d id n o t o c c u r to h im b e f o re c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, th is w oul d i ndi cat e thatt he devi ces s o obvi ous l yfi tt he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on of “de s t ruct i ve devi ces ” thatnoti ncl udi ng t he qual i fy i ng l anguage i n t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on w as a nomi nal m is ta k e . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . W

o lfe , 2 4 5 F .3 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (f in d in g n o p lain err orw her e the di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o i ns t ructt he j ur yas t o an el ementof the off ens e, w hen the i s s ue w as neverr ai s ed att r i al and the evi dence i n s uppor tof the el ementw as u n co n tr o v erted ). W h atev er the rea so n w as f o r no t asserti n g that the d ev ices the jury fo u n d to b e in N eil ’s po sses sion w ere ex clud ed fro m the s tatu toryd ef init ion , w e a re confi dentt hatt he j ur yw oul d have c onvi ct ed N ei l had the i ns t ruct i on i ncl uded the q u a lify in g lan g u a g e . T h u s, th e ju ryin stru c tio n w h ich o m itt e d th e q u a lify in g lan g u a g e d id n o t c o n s titu te p la in e rr o r. N ei l ’ s Sent ence I n r es pons e t o t hi s C our t ’ s M ar ch 9, 2005 “ B ookeror der , ” N ei l ar gues t hatj udi ci al fa ct find ing an d the c o n co m it an t i n cre ase s in h is sen tenc e w ere p rec lud ed u n d er B la ke ly6

v. W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S. __, 124 S. C t . 2531 ( 2004) . O n B la ke ly ’ s h e e l s , t h e S u p r e me C our tdeci ded U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. __, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . T her e, t he S u p re m e C o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t th e G u id e lin e s w e re o n ly ad v is o ry, n o t m a n d a to ry. H avi ng det erm i ned thatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues N ei l r ai s es ar e bes tdet erm i ned by t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand for r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker .