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 12-9-2008 

# U SA v . W olfe 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 . 06-3675

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 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 . W o l fe " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 141. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/141H onor abl e J os eph H . R odr i guez, Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe * D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes 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. 06- 3675 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . J OHN J AY W OLF E, J R. A / K / A J O H N W O LFE

J ohn J ayW ol fe, 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 W e 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. 05- cr - 00322- 2) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e 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)

D ece m ber3, 2008 B efore: A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es,

and R O D R I G U E Z , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( fi l ed: D ece m ber9, 2008 )

OP I NI ON2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge J ohn J ayW ol fe, J r . w as convi ct ed i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a of re talia tio n a g a in st a w itn e ss a n d se n ten c e d to 1 0 0 m o n th s’ in c a rc e ra tio n . H e n o w a p p e a ls hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . W e af fi r m both. 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 nece s s aryt o our d e c isio n . In A p ril 2 0 0 5 , W o lf e ’s s iste r, M a e W o lf

e , w a s in d icte d a lo n g w ith R o n a ld K nox and cha r ged w i th di s tr i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne and c ons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e cr ack coca i ne. K nox agr eed t o cooper at e w i th author i t i es , hel pi ng them under s t and the s tru c tu r e o f

M a e Wo l f

e ’ s o r g a n i z a t i o n , a n d wa s s u b s e q u e n t l yr e l e a s e d f r o m c u s t o d y . On A ugus t28, 2005, W ol fe a nd hi s br other , V i r gi l W ol fe, appr oache d K nox w hi l e he w as s t opped i n hi s carw i th hi s w i fe a nd chi l d. T he W ol fe br other s convi nced K nox t o getout of hi s carand j oi n them i n a nea rbyal l eyw ay . T her e V i r gi l W ol fe c onfr ont ed K nox about hi s al l eged c ooper at i on i n t he ca s e aga i ns tM ae W ol fe. I n r es pons e t o K nox’ s cont ent i on thatevery one i n the ca s e w as cooper at i ng w i th fede r al author i t i es , V i r gi l W ol fe f l i cked a c ig a re tte in K n o x ’s f

a c e , w h ile J o h n W o lf

e p u n c h e d h im in th e sid e o f th e h e a d w ith h is bel tw r apped a r ound hi s hands , knocki ng hi m dow n. T he br other s then bega n t o ki ck K n o x in th e ri b s . T h e a lte rc a tio n e n d e d w h e n K n o x ’s m o th e r- in -l a w a n d w if e in te rv e n e d . K no x sust ai ned i njur i es t o h i s head, j aw , neck and ri bs. O n O ct ober12, 2005, J ohn and V i r gi l W ol fe w er e ea ch i ndi ct ed forr et al i at i ng agai ns ta w i tnes s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1513( b) . O n A pr i l 12, 2006, the j uryfoundT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). To e s t a b l i s h th a tW o l f

e r e t a l i a t e d a g a i n s ta wi tn e s s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. 2 § 1513( b) , the G overnm entw as r equi r ed t o s how both thathe i nt ent i onal l yi nj ur ed K nox and that he di d so int end i ng t o ret al i at e againstK no x fo r coope rat i ng i n the case agai nst W o lf e ’s s is te r. T h e f

ir s t p o in t is n o t c o n te s te d . 3 both m en gui l ty . W ol fe then fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forJ udgm entof A cqui t t al , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed. Fol l ow i ng pr es ent at i on of the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t , he obj ect ed t o hi s cl as s i fi cat i on as a ca r eeroffe nderpur s uantt o U . S. S. G . §4B . 1. 1( a) and r eques t ed a dow nw ar d departur e due t o an over s t at ementof hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . T he D i stri ctC ou rti ssued i t s T entat i ve F i nd i ng s of F act , affirm i ng W olfe’ s cl assi fi cat i on as a car eeroffe nder . T he C our tdeni ed hi s r eques tfora dow nw ar d departur e and s ent ence d hi m t o one hundr ed mont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on and thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas ed. W ol fe t i m el yapp eal s. II. T h re e a rg u m e n ts a re b e f o re u s o n a p p e a l. 1 W ol fe a r gues fi r s tthatthe tr i al evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on beca us e i tfai l ed t o es t abl i s h w i th t he r equi s i t e ce r t ai ntythathe bea tup K nox w i th an inten t t o retali ate a g ains t him fo r co o p era ti n g in the ca se a g ains t his si ster. H is sup p o rt 2 forthi s cont ent i on i s that( 1) K nox neveract ed as a w i tnes s agai ns tM ae W ol fe, ( 2) the i ni t i al pr obabl e ca us e af fi davi tdi d notm ent i on r et al i at i on as a mot i ve forthe batt ery , and ( 3) atthe t i m e thatK nox t es t i fi ed aga i ns tJ ohn and V i r gi l W ol fe, K nox w as s ervi ng s even and hal f y ear s i n pr i s on on the drug char ges and w as l ooki ng t o have hi s s ent ence4

red u ce d . T h at aside , there w as m o re tha n en o u g h ev iden ce p rese n ted f rom w h ich a jury c o u ld re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e th a t W o lf e h a d th e re q u isite in ten t. A t trial, K n o x tes tifie d to th e f o llo w in g : (1 ) w h e n V irg il an d Jo h n W o lf e d ire c ted h im in to th e a lleyw a y , V irg il s peci fi cal l yi nform ed hi m that“[w ] e don’ tw antanythi ng t o happen . . . i n fr ontof y our fa m il y ;” (2) o n ce in the all ey w ay , V ir g il b era ted K n o x fo r “tell ing o n [h is] sist er, t es t i fy i ng agai ns ther , ” and a ccus ed hi m of pr ovi di ng w r i t t en s t at ement s agai ns tM ae W ol fe a nd of “gi vi ng up the t apes . . . on her ”; and ( 3) aft erthos e ac cus at i ons w er e made, both J ohn and V i r gi l hi tK nox, w i th J ohn punchi ng K nox i n the s i de of hi s head a nd punctur i ng hi s earw i th hi s bel tbuckl e. T hatt es t i m onyw as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe j ury ’ s ver di ctagai ns tW ol fe, es peci al l yi n l i ghtof the degr ee of defe r ence w e ow e t o the ju ry’s f a c tf in d in g . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. F l or es , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 4 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ We m u st s u sta in a v e rd ict if th e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e , v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to the g o v ern m en t, to u p h o ld the jury ’s de cisi o n . ”). S e c o n d , W o lf

e a rg u e s th a t h is p rio r P e n n sy lv a n ia c o n v ictio n f o r sim p le a ss a u lt c a n n o t s e rv e a s a b a s is f o r c la s s if y in g h im a s a c a re e r o f

f e n d e r f o r s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . H e m a k e s tw o se p a ra te a rg u m e n ts in su p p o rt o f th is c o n ten tio n . F irst, h e c o n ten d s th a t, beca us e s i m pl e as s aul tunderPenns y l vani a l aw onl yr equi r es a m ens r ea of reckles sness, it ca n n o t b e c o n sid e re d a “ c rim e o f v io len c e ” f

o r f e d e ra l se n ten c in g p u rp o se s, w h ich it mu s tb e i n o r d e rt o f

u n c t i o n a s a p r e d i c a t e f o rc a r e e ro f

f e n d e rs t a tu s u n d e rU. S . S . G.U nderU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, “[a ] defe ndanti s a ca r eeroffe nderi f ( 1) the def endant 3 w as atl eas tei ght een y ear s ol d atthe t i m e the def endantcomm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e of convi ct i on; ( 2) the i ns t antoffe ns e of c onvi ct i on i s a fe l onythati s ei thera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e; and ( 3) the def endanthas atl eas ttw o pr i or fel onyconvi ct i ons of ei thera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e. ” W o lf e ’s s e c o n d p rio r q u a lify in g c o n v ictio n w a s f o r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te drugs. T o qual i fyas a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” underU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2, an off ens e “mustbe 4 p u n ish a b le b yim p riso n m e n t f o r a ter m e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r . . . .” W o lf e a ss e rts th is is tru e o f s i m p l e a s s a u l ti n P e n n s yl v a n i a , b u tn o ttru e o f th e s a m e o f

f e n s e i n N e w J e r s e y, D el aw ar e, the V i r gi n I s l ands , O hi o orN ew Y or k. 5 §4B 1. 1. W e r ej ect ed thi s ar gum enti n U ni t ed Stat es v. D ors ey , 1 7 4 F . 3 d 3 3 1 (3d C ir . 3 1999) . T her e, w e hel d t hatbeca us e a “ s i m pl e as s aul tcan be comm i t t ed r eckl es s l ydoes not ” di s qual i fyi tas a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” forpurpos es of es t abl i s hi ng car eeroffe nder s ta tu s u n d e r t h e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . I d. at33 3. T hu s, this chall eng e fai l s. W ol fe ne xtar gues thatus i ng hi s Penns y l vani a s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on t o qual i fy hi m forcar eeroffe nders t atus vi ol at es hi s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s , s i nce the s ame offens e, i f cha r ged i n anothers t at e i n thi s C i r cui tornei ghbor i ng s t at es s uch as N ew Y or k orO hi o, w o u ld n o t ca rrya h ig h e n o u g h p o ten tial se n ten c e to c o u n t as a “ c rim e o f v io len c e .” T h is

4 ar gum entw as notaddr es s ed i n D ors ey , buti s s i m i l ar l yunper s uas i ve. “I ti s bey ond di s put e thatas l ong as C ongr es s does notus e an i nvi di ous ors us pectcl as s i fi cat i on, i thas b ro a d p o w e r u n d e r t h e c o m m e rc e c la u s e to d e f in e th e c la s s o f

c ri m in a ls to w h o m . . . enhanc ement. . . appl i es . ” U nited S tates v. B regna rd , 9 5 1 F .2 d 4 5 7 , 4 6 1 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). W ol fe doe s nots how thati tw as i r r at i onal for“C ongr es s t o concl ude [i n thi s i ns t ance ] thati t s pr i m arys our ce of r efe r ence s houl d be the maxi m um perm i s s i bl e puni s hm ent6

underthe appl i cabl e l aw . . . . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ous t on , 5 4 7 F . 2 d 1 0 4 , 1 0 7 (9th C ir . 1 9 7 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly, th is e q u a l p ro te c tio n c h a lle n g e f a ils . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l

s aps , 1 5 7 F .3 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 6

– 9 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (re jec tin g a sim ilar c h a llen g e ); B regna rd , 951 F. 2d a t 4 6 1 (sa m e ); H

ous t on , 5 4 7 F . 2 d at 10 7 (sam e). F inally , W o lfe c lai m s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in ref u sing h is r eq u est fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture f

rom the G u idelines o n the g rou n d that h is cri m inal h ist o ry c a te g o ri z a tio n s u b s ta n tia lly o v e r- re p re s e n ts th e s e ri o u s n e s s o f h is c ri m in a l r e c o rd . H ow ever , w e l ack “

j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons bydi s tr i ctcourt s t o not departdow nw ar d. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

ar gas , 4 7 7 F .3 d 9 4 , 1 0 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A ccordi ng l y , this chall eng e al so fai l s. III . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m.