# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 22 65

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el le e

v.

Bryan Co lb y

Ch ap pe ll

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 13
Fi le d: Jan ua ry

29 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
ARNOLD, Circu it Ju dg e.

B r y an Ch ap pe ll pl ead ed gu il ty t o po ss es si ng co un te rfei t cu rren cy , 1 8 U.S.C

. § 47 2, an d be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. The di st ric t

co ur t cal cu la te d hi s se nt en ci ng ran ge as 13 5 t o 16 8 m on th s bu t co nc lu de d th at he 1

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri c t J u dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.was su bjec t to a fif te en -y ear (1 80 -m on th ) m in im um pr is on se nt en ce un de r th e Arm ed

Care er Cri m in al Act (ACCA), se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ), a n d s e n t e n c ed hi m to

24 0 m on th s' im

pr is on m en t. On ap pe al

, Ch ap pe ll m ai nt a in s th at th e co ur t erre d in

co nc lu di ng th at he was an arm ed care er cri m in al un de r th e ACCA an d th at hi s pr is on

se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le . W e aff irm.

I.

A de fen da nt co nv ic te d of vi o l a t i ng § 92 2( g) who ha s "t hr ee pr ev io us

co nv ic ti on s ... fo r a vi ol en t fel on y or a s e r i ou s dr ug of fen se , o r bo th , c om m it te d on

oc cas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e an ot he r" is de em ed an arm ed care er cri m in al

. 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 4( e)(1 )

. Ch ap pe ll ack no wled ge s th at he ha d a co nv ic ti on fo r a dr ug of fen se , bu t

he co nt en ds th at he co m

m it te d a pr ed ic at e cri m e on on ly on e ot he r oc cas io n an d th us

was no t an arm ed care er cri m in al

. He arg ue s th at hi s 19 91 co nv ic ti on s fo r bu rg la ry ,

ars on , an d m

ur de r -- cri m es th at he c o mm i tt ed on th e sa m e da y -- sh ou ld ha ve

co un te d as on e, rat he r th an two

, "p rev io us co nv ic ti on s" un de r th e ACCA be cau se th e
cri m es al l oc cu rred o n th e sa m e "o ccas io n." The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at hi s

m ur de r co nv ic ti on w as fo r a pr ed ic at e of fen se se pa rat e fro m hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r
bu rg la ry an d ars on

. W e rev ie w th e is su e de no vo

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W il lo ug hb y , 65 3 F .3d 73 8, 7 41 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

At se nt en ci ng , Ch ap pe ll te st ifi ed ab ou t t h e cri m es un de rlyin g hi s 19 91

co nv ic ti on s as fo ll ows

. An in di vi du al na m ed Hub ert Hes s, who ha d st ol en Ch ap pe ll 's

to ol s, to ld Ch ap pe ll th at th ey w e r e lo cat ed at th e ho m e of Terry Hil l. Hes s an d

Ch ap pe ll th en dr ov e Hes s's va n to Hil l's ho me. The ho us e was em pt y bu t th e do or

was un lo ck ed

, an d Hes s an d Ch ap pe ll en te red

. Ch ap pe ll d i s c o ve red th at th e to ol s

were no t whe re Hes s ha d sa id th at th ey wou ld be

, co nc lu de d th at Hil l ha d ta ke n th em ,

an d se t Hil l's ho us e on fir e. Afte r Hes s sa id th at he di dn 't w a n t a n yth in g to do wit h

th e fir e, Ch ap pe ll kn oc ke d hi m to th e gr ou nd

, ki ck ed hi m in th e face

, dr ag ge d hi m to

th e va n, an d pu t hi m in th e pa ss en ge r's se at

. Ch ap pe ll th en dr ov e ho m e to ret rie ve a

-2

-gu n. Tak in g th e gu n wit h hi m , Ch ap pe ll dr ov e t h e v a n carr y in g Hes s to a ne arb y

br id ge , sh ot hi m

to de at h, an d t hr ew th e b od y in a di tc h.

Und er th e ACCA

, e a c h di st in ct "cr im in al ep is od e"
-- as op po se d to a

"co nt in uo us co ur se of co nd uc t"
-- is a se pa rat e pr ed ic at e of fe n s e , reg ard le ss of th e
"d at e of th e co nv ic ti on s or th e nu m be r o f t r i a l s or pl eas res ul ti ng in th os e

co nv ic ti on s." Uni te d St at es v. Mas on , 44 0 F.3 d 10 56

, 10 57 -5 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). And

we ha ve in di cat ed th at a cri m in al of fen se is a di st in ct cri m in al ep is od e whe n it oc cu rs

in a di ffer en t lo cat io n an d at a di ffer en t ti m e. Fo r ex am pl e, in Uni te d St at es v.

H a m e ll

, 3 F.3 d 11 87

, 11 91 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ), cer t. de ni ed

, 51 0 U.S. 11 38 & 11 39
(1 99 4)

, we co nc lu de d th at th e de fen da nt 's two as sa ul ts co m m it te d wit hi n m in ut es of

each ot he r were se pa rat e pr ed ic at e of fen se s un de r th e ACCA: The de fen da nt ha d fir st

st ab be d so m eo ne in si de a ta ve rn aft er an arg um en t. "Ab ou t twen ty-fiv e m in ut es la te r

ou ts id e th e ta ve rn , [he ] sh ot at a di ffer en t vi ct im who ha d call ed th e po li ce an d was

ap pr oa ch in g [th e de fen da nt 's] gi rlf rie nd ." Id

. Afte r no ti ng th at th e a s s a u l t s

"h ap pe ne d at di ffer en t ti m es an d pl aces an d ha d di ffer en t m ot iv at io ns ," we he ld th at

th ey "wer e se pa rat e an d di st in ct cri m in al e p i s o d e s th at di d no t res ul t fro m a

co nt in uo us co ur se of co nd uc t." Id

. "Di sc ret e cri m in al ep is od es , rat he r th an da te s of

co nv ic ti on s, tri gg er th e en ha nc em en t." Uni te d St at es v. Gra y , 85 F.3 d 38 0, 38 1 (8 th

Ci r. 19 96 ). W e be li ev e t h a t C h a p p el l's m ur de r co nv ic ti on is si m il arl y ba se d on a
cri m in al ep is od e se pa rat e fro m th e bu rg la ry an d arso n, beca us e th e cri m es oc cu rred

at di ffer en t l oc at io ns , aga in st di ffer en t v ic ti m s, an d a t d iff eren t t im es

.

W e co nc lu de th at W

il lo ug hb y , 65 3 F.3 d at 74 1, whi ch Ch ap pe ll re l i e s o n , is

eas il y di st in gu is he d. In th at cas e, a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t to ld th e de fen da nt th at he

an d an un de rco ve r po li ce of fic er acco m

pa nyin g h i m wan te d to bu y dr ug s fro m th e
de fen da nt

. W e he ld th at th e d e fen da nt 's sa le of dr ug s "t o th e of fic er an d, se co nd s

la te r," to th e CI, were no t "s ep arat e an d di st in ct cri m in al ep is od es " bu t in st ead "o ne

co nt in uo us co ur se of co nd uc t" be cau se th ey were "co m m it te d, in e s s e n c e,
si m ul ta ne ou sl y ." Id

. at 74 1– 42 ( q u o ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Si m il arl y , in

-3

-Uni te d St at es v. Pett y , 82 8 F.2 d 2, 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 8 7 ) ( p e r c u r i am ), we he ld th at th e
de fen da nt 's "s im

ul ta ne ou s" ro bb ery of si x pe rs on s in a res ta ur an t co ns ti tu te d a si ng le

cri m in al ep is od e, ev en th ou gh th e de fen da nt was co nv i c t e d of si x co un ts of arm ed

ro bb ery fo r th is co nd uc t. Here th e m ur de r di d no t oc cu r at th e s a me t i me a s th e
bu rg la ry an d ars on , an d th ou gh th e pa us e be twee n th e cri m es was no t lo ng , th ey were

"s ti ll co m m it te d on di ffer en t occa si on s" be cau se th ey "re fle ct di st in ct ag gr es si on s."

Se e Uni te d S t at es v. Dav id so n , 52 7 F.3 d 70 3, 71 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on

an d qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , v ac at ed in pa rt on ot he r g ro un ds , 55 1 F.3d 80 7 (8t h

Ci r. 20 08 ). As we ha ve no te d, Ch ap pe ll co m m it te d th e mu rd er aft er th e ars on , a t a
di ffer en t lo cat io n, an d ag ai ns t a di ffer en t vi ct im

. W e th ere f o r e b e l i e ve th at th e

of fen se s oc cu rred on di f

f e r en t oc cas io ns an d were two se pa rat e pr ed ic at e of fen se s

un de r § 92 4( e) th at

, wit h th e dr ug of fen s e , pr op erl y res ul te d in Ch ap pe ll 's

cl as si fic at io n a s an arm ed care er cr im in al

.

II.

Ch ap pe ll al so ch al le ng es hi s se nt en ce as un reas on ab le. W e rev ie w fo r an ab us e

of di sc ret io n, gi vi ng gr eat de fere nc e to th e d i s t r ic t co ur t whe n de te rm in in g th e

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce: it wil l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t

co ur t se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab l e

. Uni te d St at es v. Elo di o– Ben it ez , 67 2 F .3d 58 4, 5 86 (8t h C ir.2 01 2)

.

Ch ap pe ll c o n t e n d s th at

, in se nt en ci ng hi m , th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y

co ns id ered th e fact th at he ha d be en rel eas ed be fo re se rv in g hi s fu ll se nt en ce fo r hi s

s t a te m ur de r co nv ic ti on

. Bu t it di d no t co ns id er th at fact in is ol at io n. Rat he r, t h e

co ur t ob se rv ed th at aft er rece iv i ng th e be ne fit of earl y rel eas e, Ch ap pe ll ha d

co m m it te d ad di ti on al cri m es , a m at te r th a t r el at ed to Ch ap pe ll 's "h is to ry an d

ch arac te ris ti cs , " s e e 1 8 U

. S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1)

. And th e co ur t ha d an op po rtu ni ty to

a s s e s s Ch ap pe ll 's ch arac te r fu rth er be cau se he ch os e to te st ify at se nt en ci ng

. Ch ap pe ll de sc rib ed th e v i o l e n t cri m es th at he ha d co m m it te d an d, th ou gh th e

te st im on y was in te nd ed to sh ow th at th e m ur de r oc cu rred on th e sa m e "o ccas io n" as

-4

-th e bu rg la ry an d ars on un de r th e ACCA, se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ), th e di st ric t co ur t

rel ie d o n h is te st im on y to m ak e fin di ng s rel ev an t to so m e of th e fact or s it ha d to

co ns id er at se nt en ci ng un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). The co ur t s ai d t ha t i t h ad ho pe d

t h a t Ch ap pe ll 's te st im on y wou ld ex pr es s rem or se fo r th e m ur de r an d sh ow th a t

Ch ap pe ll reco gn iz ed th at he ha d co m m it te d "t erri bl e" act s. Bu t th e co ur t fo un d th at

Ch ap pe ll sh owe d no rem or se , an d de sc rib ed hi m as ha vi ng te st ifi ed in st ead ab ou t

ho w he ha d co m

m it te d th e act s be cau se he was "m ad " be cau se Hes s "s to le [h is ] to ol s.
And so [h e ha d] bu rn ed do wn th e ho us e an d

... ki ll ed hi m ." Our read in g of th e reco rd

rev eal s th at th e co ur t si m pl y an d ap pr op ria te ly co ns id e r e d m at te rs rel ev an t to th e
de fen da nt 's ch a r a c t e r , a n d we de te ct no ab us e of di sc ret io n he re. W e al so reject

Ch ap pe ll 's co nt en ti on th at th e co ur t fai le d to co ns id er h i s h e a l t h an d ag e; it

sp eci fic al ly not ed th at Ch ap pe ll so ug ht a lo wer s en te nc e b ecau se he was o ld an d i n

po or he al th

.

Affi rm ed

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-