2009 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 4-20-2009 

# U SA v . H o z a y Royal 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 . 08-2217

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . H o za y Ro yal " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1519. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1519NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O URTO F AP P E ALS F O R T H ET H IRD C IRC U IT No. 08-2217 UN I TE D STAT ES O F AM ERI CA

v . H O ZAYR O YA L,

Appellant

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. 08- 00001- N S- 1) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le N o rm a L . S h ap ir o Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 17, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , SM I T H , and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 20, 2009)

OP I NI ON V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge H ozayR oy al appea l s hi s A pr i l 16, 2008 s ent ence . B eca us e R oy al know i ngl yand in tellig e n tlyw a iv e d h is rig h t to c o u n se l, an d b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in2

fi ndi ng thathe comm i t t ed a c r i m i nal offe ns e puni s habl e byone y earorm or e under Penns y l vani a l aw w hi l e on es cape s t atus , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence . I. B ec au se w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l add ress o n lytho se f ac ts ne ce ssary to o u r o p in io n . O n N ovember16, 2005, R oy al w as convi ct ed of 71 c ount s of ac ces s devi ce f r aud a n d m a il fra u d , fo r w h ich h e w a s u lti m a telyse n ten c e d to 4 1 m o n th s in p riso n . O n A p ril 6, 2007, R oy al w as tr ans ferr ed t o t he Luzerne C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons C ent er( “LC C C ”) in P h il ad elph ia t o serv e the last1 2 0 d ay s o f th at sen tenc e. A fter f ail ing to ap p ea r fo r a h e a d c o u n t at L C C C , R o y a l w a s p lac e d o n e sc a p e sta tu s o n M a y1 8 , 2 0 0 7 . P e n n sy lv a n ia s t at e pol i ce a r r es t ed R oy al foracc es s devi ce f r aud on N ovember26, 2007, aft erl earni ng that he had used a c redi tcard nu m ber bel on ging t o an otherperson t o p urchase m erc h an d ise at a su p p lystore f o r i n d u str ial an d co n stru cti o n eq u ipm en t i n M il fo rd T o w n s h ip , P e n n s y lv a n ia . O n Ja n u a ry3 , 2 0 0 8 , a g ra n d ju rysittin g in th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia re tu rn e d a o n e -c o u n t in d ic tm e n t c h a rg in g R o y a l w ith e s c a p e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 751( a) . A thi s i ni t i al appea r ance on the cha r ges , R oy al s t i pul at ed t o det ent i on and r eques t ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e. T he magi s tr at e j udge al l ow ed hi m t o pr ocee d pr o s e but appoi nt ed s t andbycouns el fr om the Feder al D efe nder ’ s A s s oci at i on. O n Ja n u a ry2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , at th e in iti a l sta tu s c o n f e re n c e b e f

o re th e D istric t C o u rt, R o y a l re n e w e d h is re q u e st to p ro c e e d p ro se . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n d u c ted a c o llo q u yto3

det erm i ne w hetherR oy al under s t ood the natur e of, and pos s i bl e pena l t i es for , the cha r ges agai ns thi m and ca ut i oned hi m on the dange r s of r epr es ent i ng hi m s el f. I n part i cul ar , t he D istric t C o u rt in f

o rm e d R o y a l th a t ther e ar e ce r t ai n compl i cat i ons abouty ours ent ence i n w hi ch havi ng a law y e r w o u ld b e e x tra o rd in a rilyh e lp f u l. . . . [ T ]h e re a re c e rta in ci r cumst ance s thatl ow erthe s ent ence and i tw oul d be hel pful t o have a l aw y erw ho knew hi s orherw ayar ound the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes t o m ake thatar gum entfory ou. I don’ tthi nk thatas a nonl aw y ery ou w oul d be i n as g o o d a p o s itio n to lo w e r— a rg u e f o r a le s s e r s e n te n c e .

. . . D o y ou under s t and thati f y ou r epr es enty our s el f I can’ tadvi s e y ou o n h o w y o u sh o u ld c o n d u c t y o u r c a se ? A sid e f ro m y o u r w ill in g n e ss to co n su ltb ac k -up co u n sel y o u w o u ld— y o u w o n ’th av e the h elp o f th e C o u rt b e c a u s e I h a v e to b e n e u tr a l. Supp. App. at7- 8. A ft erconfe r r i ng w i th defe ns e couns el , R oy al w i thdr ew hi s r eques tand as ked the courtt o appoi ntfede r al defe nderM ark W i l s on as hi s couns el . T he D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed thi s r eques tand s t at ed “I w i l l advi s e y ou, i n m yopi ni on, y ou’ ve made a w i s e dec i s i on beca us e a tr ai ned l aw y ercan de fend y ou bett erthan y ou can de fend y our s el f. ” I

d. at10- 11. O n February4, 2008, R oy al ent er ed an ope n gui l typl ea t o the es cape char ge. In it s P rese n tenc e R ep o rt(“P S R ”), th e P rob ati o n O ff ice d eterm ined that, u n d er § 2P1. 1 of the U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual , the bas e off ens e l evel forthe es cape c h a r g e w a s 1 3 . I tf

u r th e rd e t e r m i n e d th a tR o ya l c o m m i t t e d a s t a t e o f f e n s e p u n i s h a b l e b y a ter m o f im p riso n m e n t o f

a t lea st o n e y e a r w h ile h e w a s o n e sc a p e sta tu s; a c c o rd in g ly , it d e te rm in e d th a t h e w a s n o t e lig ib le f o r a d o w n w a rd a d

ju s tm e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2P1. 1( b) ( 3) , w hi ch pr ovi des fora four - l evel r educt i on “[i ] f the def endantes cape d fr om4

the non- s ecur e cus t odyof a c om m uni tycorr ect i ons cent er . ” The PS R appl i ed a tw o- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . B as ed on R oy al ’ s adj us t ed off ens e l evel of 11 and cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , the PSR cal cul at ed hi s gui del i ne r ange a s 27 t o 33 m on ths. Be f o r e th e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , Ro y a l s u b mi t t e d p r o s e o b j e c t i o n s t o th e P S R. B eca us e R oy al w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el , the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or ders tr i ki ng th o se o b jec tio n s. A t th e M a rc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 se n ten c in g h e a rin g , R o y a l re n e w e d h is re q u e st to p ro c e e d p ro se b a se d o n h is a ss e rtio n th a t th e re w e re a sp e c ts o f th e P S R th a t h e w a n ted to cont es tand thathe coul d addr es s thos e obj ect i ons m or e ef fec t i vel ythan hi s appoi nt ed c o u n se l. T h e D istric t C o u rt a g a in a d m o n ish e d R o y a l ab o u t th e im p o rta n c e o f c o u n se l in the s ent enci ng cont ext , s t at i ng that“[t ] he s ent enci ng gui del i nes , do y ou under s t and, they ’ r e veryt echni cal and . . . y ou w i l l be w el l s erved byhavi ng a l aw y ert o r epr es ent y ou. ” Supp. App. a t 1 8 -1 9 . N e v e rth e les s, th e D istric t C o u rt u lti m a telyp e rm itt e d R o y a l to pr ocee d pr o s e w i th M ark W i l s on as back- up couns el . R oy al ther eaf t err ai s ed s ever al obj ect i on s t o h i s cr i m i nal hi st orycal culat i on , w hich the D i stri ctC ou rtrej ect ed. H e al so obj ect ed to the d et erm i nati on that he had com m i t t ed a st at e off ense pu nis hab l e byatl east o n e y ea r i n p ri so n , there b yren d ering h im ineligible f o r th e f o u r-l ev el red u cti o n u n d er § 2P1. 1( b) ( 3) . R oy al as s ert ed thatthe evi dence thathe had c om m i t t ed s uch an of fens e w as i ns uffi ci ent , as ther e had be en no pr obabl e ca us e det erm i nat i on on the cha r ge. H e further obj ect ed t o the i ntr oduct i on of hea r s ayevi dence ats ent enci ng. N ot i ng thatthe fa ctof char ges , w i thoutm or e, w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h thatR oy al comm i t t ed the cha r ged5

offe ns es of i dent i tytheftand ac ces s devi ce f r aud, the D i s tr i ctC our tcont i nued the se n ten c in g h e a rin g to p e rm it th e G o v e rn m e n t to p re se n t ev id e n c e th a t R o y a l d id c o m m it th e c h a rg e d o f

f e n s e s . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng on A pr i l 16, 2008, atw hi ch the G o v e rn m e n t o f

f e re d th e tes tim o n yo f

C ra ig M o ritz, th e sa les p e rso n w h o in ter a c ted w ith R oy al i n connec t i on w i th t he al l eged f r audul enttr ans act i on. M or i t z t es t i fi ed thatR oy al us ed the al i as “D err i ck M ay es , J r . ” and pur chas ed i t ems fr om the s t or e on thr ee oc cas i ons i n No v e mb e r2 0 0 7 . I n th e f i r s to f th e s e v i s i t s , M o r i t z s t a t e d th a tRo y a l s e l e c t e d s o me ite m s to p u rc h a s e a n d to ld M o ri tz th a t h is f a th e r w o u ld c a ll w ith a c re d it c a rd n u m b e r. A fe w d ay s lat er, a m an iden ti fy ing h im self a s “D errick M ay es, S r. ” c all ed w ith a c red itca rd num berforthe pur chas es and s ai d thathi s s on w oul d pi ck up the mer chandi s e. R oy al su b se q u e n tlyp ick e d u p th e item s a n d sig n e d th e c re d it ca rd re c e ip t “D . M a y e s.” M o ritz fur thert es t i fi ed thatthe othertw o t r ans act i ons w er e exe cut ed s i m i l ar l y . I n l at e N ovember 2007, M or i t z r ece i ved a t el ephone c al l fr om the s t or e’ s corpor at e hea dquart er s , al ert i ng h im th a t th e “ M a y e s” tra n sa c tio n s w e re f ra u d u len t. B e c a u se M o ritz e x p e c ted R o y a l to r eturn t o the s t or e t o pi ck up r emai ni ng m er chandi s e, M or i t z not i fi ed the pol i ce, w ho arrested R o y al w h en h e a rri v ed at th e sto re. I n ad d it ion , M o ri tz i d en ti fied the c red itca rd s l i ps s i gned byR oy al . T he G overnm ental s o offe r ed the t es t i m onyof B r i an Fi nn, the Penns y l vani a s t at e tr ooperw ho arr es t ed R oy al . Fi nn i dent i fi ed R oy al as the per s on he a rre ste d a t th e sto re a n d tes tifie d th a t R o y a l w a s c h a rg e d w ith id e n tityth e f t, co n sp ira c yto comm i ti dent i fytheft , and s ever al count s of ac ces s devi ce f r aud.6

A s a r es ul tof thi s t es t i m ony , the D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed R oy al ’ s ar gum entand concl uded thatthe G overnm enthad es t abl i s hed bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence that R oy al had comm i t t ed a s t at e off ens e puni s habl e byone y earorm or e w hi l e on es cape statu s. B ase d o n that fin d ing , the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted th e P rese n tenc e R ep o rt ’s gui del i ne ca l cul at i on, w hi ch pr ovi ded fora gui del i ne r ange of 27 t o 33 m onths . A ft er co n side ri n g the 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d h ea ri n g fro m R o y al, the D istri ct C o u rt im p o se d a se n ten c e o f

2 7 m o n th s. R o y a l f

iled th is tim e lya p p e a l. II . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s C our thas ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r R o y a l’ s a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . T hi s C our texer ci s es pl enaryr evi ew t o det erm i ne w hethera def endant ’ s w ai verof h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l s a tis f ie d th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 452 F. 3d 223, 2 2 8 -29 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e a lso e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the fe der al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes and r evi ew i t s fac tual det erm i nat i ons f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. A qui no , 5 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). III . A . W ai verof R i ghtt o C ouns el T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t’s rig h t to h a v e c o u n se l f o r h is d e f e n s e a n d to re f

u s e c o u n s e l a n d re p re s e n t h im s e lf. Fa re tta v . C a lif o rn ia , 422 U . S. 806, 8 1 4 (1 9 7 5 ); see al

so Jones , 452 F. 3d at228. I ndeed, a cr i m i nal defe ndantw ho r efus es couns el and r epr es ent s hi m s el f “‘ m us tbe al l ow ed t o m ake thatchoi ce, even i f i tw or ks7

ul t i m at el yt o hi s ow n detr i m ent . ’ ” Jones , 452 F. 3d at228 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. P epp ers , 302 F. 3d 120, 130 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ) . N everthel es s , beca us e of the di s advant ages o f se lf-rep rese n tat ion , the S u p rem e C o u rt“h as sc rup u lou slyreq u ir ed that a d ef en d an t’ s w ai verof couns el be both vol unt aryand a ‘ know i ng and i nt el l i gentr el i nqui s hm entor abandonmentof a know n r i ghtorpr i vi l ege. ’ ” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3d 214, 218 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( quot i ng E dw ar ds v. A r iz ona , 4 5 1 U . S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 2 (19 8 1 )). B efor e perm i t t i ng a def endantt o w ai ve hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o couns el and t o pr ocee d pr o s e, the D i s tr i ctC our tm us tas cert ai n thatthe def endant ’ s w ai verof the ri g h t to c o u n s e l is k n o w in g , v o lu n ta ry, a n d c o m p e te n tly m a d e . Jones , 452 F. 3d at228- 29. T o d isc h a rg e th is “ ‘w e ig h tyre sp o n sib ili ty ,’” th e trial c o u rt m u st “ ‘c o n d u c t[ ] a su f f icie n tly penetr at i ng i nqui r yt o s at i s fyi t s el f thatthe def endant ’ s w ai verof couns el i s know i ng and under s t andi ng as w el l as vol unt ary . ’ ” I d. at228 ( quot i ng P epp ers , 3 0 2 F . 3 d at 13 0 -31 ). T h is d u ty ex te n d s to a ll s ta g e s o f th e p ro c e e d in g s , in c lu d in g th e s e n te n c in g s ta g e . Sa l e mo , 6 1 F . 3 d at 21 9 (“It i s w ell sett led th at ‘[i] t i s the so lem n d u tyo f a fe d era l j u d g e b ef o re w h o m a d e f

e n d a n t ap p e a rs w ith o u t co u n se l to m a k e a th o ro u g h in q u irya n d to tak e a ll ste p s n e c e ss a ryto in su re th e f u lles t p ro tec tio n o f

th is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t ateve r y s tage of the pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” ( quot i ng V on Mol tke v . G i l l i es , 3 3 2 U . S . 7 0 8 , 7 2 2 (19 4 8 ) (plura li ty )). N everthel es s , the s cope of the i nqui ryvar i es dependi ng on the s t age of the pr ocee di ng; as thi s C our thas obs erved, “the i nqui ryats ent enci ng need onl ybe t ai l or ed t o that pr ocee di ng and the cons equenc es thatm ayfl ow fr om i t . ” I d. R oy al as s ert s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n perm i tt i ng hi m t o r epr es enthi m s el f at8

s ent enci ng beca us e i tfai l ed t o ens ur e thathi s w ai verw as know i ng and i nt el l i gent . R oy al m ade hi s fi r s tr eques tt o pr ocee d pr o s e atthe i ni t i al s t ages of the ca s e; i n r es pons e, the D is tr ic t C o u rt c o n d u c te d a th o ro u g h c o llo q u yo n th e re c o rd . S e e Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3d at221 ( “‘ [A ] col l oquybetw een the def endantand tr i al j udge i s the pr efe rr ed met hod of as cert ai ni ng thata w ai veri s vol unt ary , know i ng and i nt el l i gent . ” ( quot i ng G o v ’t o f V irg in I s lands v. Jam es , 934 F. 3d 468, 473 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ) ) . D ur i ng thatcol l oquy , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt q u e stio n e d R o y a l ab o u t th e n a tu re o f th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im a s w e ll as h is educa t i on l evel and fa m i l i ar i tyw i th cr i m i nal l aw , des cr i bed the maxi m um pot ent i al p e n a lti e s o f

th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , ca u tio n e d h im a g a in st re p re se n tin g h im se lf , told h im that“a tr ai ned l aw y ercan de fend y ou bett erthan y ou can de fend y our s el f, ” poi nt ed out s ever al w ay s i n w hi ch an a t t orneycoul d as s i s thi m i n ar gui ng fora l ow ers ent ence , and, ul t i m at el y , comm ended hi s “w i s e” de ci s i on t o pr ocee d w i th couns el . A ts ent enci ng, w hen R oy al r enew ed hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d pr o s e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notconductt he s ame det ai l ed col l oquy . I ns t ead, i n a br i ef e xchange , the D i s tr i ctC our tr emi nded R oy al th a t “[ t]h e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s . . . th e y ’re v e rytec h n ica l an d th a t [ h e w o u ld ] b e w e ll s erved byhavi ng a l aw y ert o r epr es ent[hi m ] . ” D es pi t e thi s w arni ng, R oy al as s ert ed that he coul d obj ectm or e ef fec t i vel ythan hi s couns el t o cert ai n as pect s of the PSR and e le c te d to p ro c e e d p ro s e . A l though t hi s excha nge w as br i ef, the D i s tr i ctC our thad al r eadyconduct ed a leng thyco ll o q u yw ith R o y al t o asse ss h is fam il iari tyw ith h is ch arg es a n d the law , to alert hi m t o the r i s ks of s el f- r epr es ent at i on, and t o pr ovi de s peci fi c exa m pl es of how9

r epr es ent at i on w oul d as s i s thi m , part i cul ar l yi n the s ent enci ng s t age. A ccor di ngl y , the excha nge betw een the D i s tr i ctC our tand R oy al ats ent enci ng— a s t age i n the pr ocee di ngs thatr equi r es l es s s peci al i zed know l edge than tr i al

— w as s uffi ci entt o enabl e the D i s tr i ct C our tt o under s t and w hyR oy al w ant ed t o r epr es enthi m s el f, t o al ertR oy al t o the r i s ks i nher enti n s el f- r epr es ent at i on, and t o ens ur e thatR oy al ’ s w ai verof the r i ghtt o couns el a t th e s e n te n c in g s ta g e w a s v o lu n ta ry, k n o w in g , a n d in te llig e n t. S e e Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3d at 219- 20 ( “O f cour s e, the i nqui r yats ent enci ng need onl ybe t ai l or ed t o thatpr ocee di ng and the cons equenc es thatfl ow fr om i t . T her efor e, i tneed notbe as exhaus t i ve and s ear chi ng as a s i m i l ari nqui r ybefor e the conc l us i on of tr i al [bec aus e] ‘ [s ] ent enci ng hear i ngs demand m uch l es s s peci al i zed know l edge than tr i al s . ’ ” ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D ay , 998 F. 2d 622, 626 ( 1s tC i r . 1993) ) ) . I n i t s deci s i on t o gr antR oy al ’ s r eques tt o pr ocee d pr o s e, th e D istric t C o u rt still pr o v id e d R o y a l w ith a n im p o rta n t sa f e g u a rd w h e n it state d th a t it w oul d “al l ow [hi m ] t o r epr es ent[hi m ] s el f w i th M r . W i l s on as backup c ouns el . ” C f. Jam es , 9 3 4 F .2 d a t 4 7 2 -7 3 (“ M o st s ig n if ica n tly , the c o u rt d id n o t allo w [ th e d e f e n d a n t] to pr ocee d compl et el yunas s i s t ed butappoi nt ed s t and- bycouns el t o s i tw i th hi m and ans w er an yq u esti o n s tha t he m ayh av e h ad d u ri n g tr ial . ”). O u r re v iew o f

th e re c o rd , inc lu d in g th e D istric t C o u rt’s le n g th yc o llo q u yw ith R oy al atthe i ni t i al s t age of the ca s e, the s ubs equentexcha nge atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng dur i ng w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tr emi nded hi m of the t echni cal natur e of the Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s, a n d th e u lti m a te d e c isio n to p e rm it R o y a l to re p re se n t h im se lf w ith th e sa f

e ty netof bac k- up couns el , m akes cl earthatR oy al ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o couns el w as10

v o lu n tar y , k n o w in g , an d in tellig e n t.

B . C om m i s s i on of O ffe ns e W hi l e on Escape St atus S ect i on 2P 1. 1(a) (1) of the U . S . S entenci ng G uidel i nes M anu al provides for a base offe ns e l evel of 13 forthe cr i m e of e s cape fr om cus t odyorconfi nementi f thatcus t odyor confi nementr es ul t s fr om a convi ct i on. Sect i on 2P1. 1( b) ( 3) pr ovi des fora four - l evel red u cti o n fro m that b ase o ff en se lev el “[ i] f th e d ef

en d an t esca p ed fro m the n o n -sec u re c u s to d yo f

a c o m m u n ity c o rr e c tio n s c e n te r, c o m m u n ity tre a tm e n t c e n te r, ‘ h a lf w a yh o u s e ,’ or si m i l ar faci l i ty ” and fai l ed to r eturn vo l un t ari l yw i thin ni nety -s i x h ou rs . N evertheles s, i tpr ovi des that“thi s r educt i on s hal l notappl yi f the def endant , w hi l e aw ayfr om the fac i l i ty , comm i t t ed anyfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal offe ns e puni s habl e bya t erm of im p ri so n m en t of

o n e y ea r or m o re. ” U . S . S . G . § 2 P 1 . 1 (b)(3 ). I n i t s Pr es ent ence R eport , the Pr obat i on O ffi cerdet erm i ned thatR oy al w as not e n tit led to th e f

o u r-le v e l re d u c tio n u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 P 1 .1 (b )(3 ), citin g th e p e n d in g sta te ch arg es o f id en ti tythef

t and ac ce ss d ev ice f

rau d , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 P a. C . S . § 4 1 0 6 (a)(1), beca us e thos e cha r ges r efl ect ed R oy al ’ s comm i s s i on of a s t at e off ens e puni s habl e for m or e than one y ear . R oy al obj ect ed t o the deni al of thi s r educt i on atthe M ar ch 25, 2008 s ent enci ng hear i ng, ar gui ng thatno pr obabl e ca us e hea r i ng on the s t at e cha r ges had bee n c o n d u c ted . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n tin u e d th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g a f ter p o in tin g o u t th a t, i n o r d e rt o e s t a b l i s h th a tth e f o u r - l e v e l r e d u c t i o n u n d e rU . S . S . G . § 2 P 1 . 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) d i d n o ta p p l y, th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d to p ro v e b ya 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 R o y a l ac tu a llyT he Supr eme C our thas det erm i ned that , i n gener al , “fa ct s r el evantt o s ent enci ng 1 [s houl d] be pr oved bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence ” and that“appl i cat i on of the pr eponder ance s t andar d ats ent enci ng gener al l ys at i s fi es due pr oces s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W a tts , 5 1 9 U .S . 1 4 8 , 1 5 6 (1 9 9 7 ); U nited S tates v. B erry , 5 5 3 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tobs erved thatthe l os s as s oci at ed w i th the tr ans act i ons

2 tr ig g e re d a f

ir s t- d e g re e m is d e m e a n o r c la s s if ic a tio n . See 18 Pa. C . S. § 4106( c) ( 1) ( i i ) . T he m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entfora fi r s t - degr ee mi s demeanori n Penns y l vani a i s fi ve 11 comm i t t ed the cha r ged off ens e. 1 A tthe cont i nuat i on of the s ent enci ng hear i ng on A pr i l 16, 2008, the G overnm ent p re se n ted tes tim o n yo f

C ra ig M o ritz, th e sa les p e rso n a t th e sto re w h e re R o y a l alle g e d ly comm i t t ed the cha r ged off ens es , and B r i an Fi nn, the Penns y l vani a s t at e pol i ce of fi cer w ho arr es t ed R oy al atthe s t or e. M or i t z t es t i fi ed thatR oy al engage d i n a s cheme t o us e a cre d itca rd b elon g ing to an o ther ind ividu al t o p u rch ase m erc h an d ise fro m the s u p p lystore wh e r e h e wo r k e d . M o r i t z f u r th e rt e s t i f

i e d th a th e a l e r t e d th e p o l i c e t o Ro y a l ’ s s c h e me a f ter lea rn in g th a t h is p u rc h a se s w e re f ra u d u len t, an d h e id e n tifie d th e c re d it ca rd re c e ip ts fr om the pur chas es , w hi ch w er e s i gned byR oy al . Fi nn t es t i fi ed thathe arr es t ed R oy al at the s uppl ys t or e af

t erbei ng t i pped off

abouthi s fr audul ents cheme. Fi nn s t at ed thatR oy al w as char ged w i th i dent i tytheft , cons pi r acyt o comm i ti dent i tytheft , and s ever al count s of a c c e s s d e v ic e f

ra u d . B as ed on thi s t es t i m ony , the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatthe governm ent e s ta b lis h e d b ya 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 R o y a l h a d c o m m itte d a c c e s s d e v ic e , a Penns y l vani a s t at e off

ens e puni s habl e byone y earorm or e w hi l e on es cape s t atus . R oy al 2y ea rs. 1 8 P a. C . S . § 1 0 6 (b)(6 ).

A s the G overnm ent ’ s br i ef not es , § 4106( a) ( 2) fur therpr os cr i bes “ai d[i ng] or 3 a b e t[ tin g ] a n yo th e r p e rso n to u se a n a c c e ss d e v ice k n o w in g th a t th e a c c e ss d e v ice is c o u n ter f e it, a ltere d o r in c o m p lete , b e lo n g s to a n o th e r p e rso n w h o h a s n o t au th o riz e d its us e, has been r evoked orcanc el ed orforanyr eas on i s unauthor i zed bythe i s s uerorthe d e v ic e h o ld e r.” B e c a u s e R o y a l “ u s e d ” th e a c c e s s d e v ic e f o r p u rp o s e s o f

1 8 P a . C .S . § 4 1 0 6 , we n e e d n o tc o n s i d e rth e Go v e rn me n t ’ s s u b s i d i a rya r g u me n tth a t , a ta mi n i mu m, R oy al “ai d[ed] orabet [t ed] ” anotheri ndi vi dual i n the fr audul entus e of a n acc es s devi ce. 12 ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n m aki ng thi s fi ndi ng. H e cont ends th a t, pu rsu a n t to 1 8 P a . C .S . § 4 1 0 6 (a )(1 ), th e “ u se ” o f a n a c c e ss d e v ice to o b tain p ro p e rty i s a r equi r ed el ementof the off ens e cha r ged, and he a r gues thatt es t i m onyi n the se n ten c in g h e a rin g d id n o t sh o w th a t h e “ u se d ” a n o th e r’s a c c e ss d e v ice to o b tain p ro p e rty or services . T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yas s es s ed the evi dence pr offe r ed bythe governm entand c o n c l u d e d th a tth e e v i d e n c e s u f f i c e d t o p r o v e b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e th a t , a ta mi n i mu m, R oy al comm i t t ed the off ens e of a cce s s devi ce f

r aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 Pa. C . S. § 4106. P e n n sy lv a n ia la w m a k e s it u n law f u l to “ u se a n a c c e ss d e v ice to o b tain o r in a n a ttem p t to 3 o b tain p ro p e rtyo r se rv ice s w ith k n o w led g e th a t (i) th e a c c e ss d e v ice is c o u n ter f e it, al t er ed ori ncompl et e; ( i i ) the ac ces s devi ce w as i s s ued t o anotherper s on w ho has not author i zed i t s us e; ( i i i ) the ac ces s devi ce ha s been r evoked orcanc el ed; or( i v) forany otherr eas on hi s us e of the ac ces s devi ce i s unauthor i zed bythe i s s uerorthe devi ce h o lder.” 1 8 P a. C . S . § 4 1 0 6 (a)(1). R o y al’s arg u m en t th at he d id n o t “us e” the c red itca rd i nvol ved i n pur chas es atthe Fas t enal s t or e fa i l s . T he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence fr om the13

s t or e s al es per s on and the arr es t i ng offi cerdemonstr at es that , aft erpl aci ng or der s atthe sto re , R o y a l (o r so m e o n e e lse ) c a lled th e sto re w ith a c re d it ca rd n u m b e r b e lo n g in g to s om e otheri ndi vi dual . W hen R oy al r eturned t o the s t or e t o pi ck up the mer chandi s e, he s i gned the cr edi tcar d r ece i pt s us i ng an al i as . B yr etr i evi ng the mer chandi s e pur chas ed w i th a creditcard no this ow n an d b ysi gn i ng the creditcard r ecei pts for tho se purchases, R o y a l “ u s e d ” th e c re d it c a rd to “ o b ta in . . . p ro p e rt yo r s e rv ic e s .” 1 8 P a . C .S . § 4106( a) ( 1) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n concl udi ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatR oy al comm i t t ed ac ces s devi ce f r aud, an off

ens e puni s habl e bym or e than o n e y e a r u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia la w , w h ile o n e s c a p e s ta tu s . B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence .