2004 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
1-21-2004 

# U SA v . Ack e r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2442

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Acke r " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1080. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/1080NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2442
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. PETER ACKER, Appellant
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 97-00076-01) Honorable Harvey

Bartle , II I, Dis tri ct Judge
Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) January 12, 2004 BE FO RE : BA RR Y, S M ITH , and GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: Januar

y 21, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judge
. Peter Acker a

ppeals t o this court from two orders of t he dist rict court: an order dated and ent ered on May 5, 2003, deny ing his motion for modi ficat ion of his sentence , and a n ord er date d M ay 15, 20 03, an d ente red o n M ay 16, 20 03, de nying h is mo tion to2

alte r or amend the May 5, 2003 order . These moti ons rel ated t o the sent ence the di stri ct court imposed on Acker on June 24, 1997, following hi s plea of gui lty to both count s of a two -co unt info rma tion cha rgin g hi m w ith ar me d ba nk r obb ery in v iolat ion of 1 8 U .S.C . § 211 3(d ) an d us e of

fire arm s in re latio n to a crim e of vio lenc e in v iolat ion of 1 8 U .S.C . § 924(c)( 1). The di stri ct court sentence d Acker to a 37-month custodi al te rm on the bank robbery charge and a co nsecutive 6 0-mon th custodial term o n the firearm s charge, fo r a totalcustodi al te rm of 97-months. In addition, t he court required Acker to serve a fiveyear term of super

vised r elease , to make r esti tuti on of $2500, and t o pay a $100 s pecial
assess ment. We, however, are concer ned on this appeal only wit h the custodial s entence and period of

supervi sed rel ease. Acker did not a

ppeal fr om the judgment of c onvicti on and sentenc e. He, however, did move in the dis tri ct court for a modifi cati on of his se ntence pur suant t o 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c )(2). This moti on led to t he entry of the orde rs we now review. The district court had j urisdi ction unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have juri sdiction under 28 U.S .C. § 129 1. W e ex ercis e ple nar y revie w o n th is ap pea l. See United States v. McBride , 283 F.3d 612, 614 (3d Cir. 200 2). Acker explains that the issues he present s on this appeal are as foll ows: I. W heth er th e dis trict c our t erre d in den ying A ppe llant [’s] 18 U .S.C . § 3582(c)( 2) motion for

Modificati on of Sentence. II. [Whether] Amendment[s] 591 [and] 599 of the United State s Sentenc ing Gu ideline M anual 20 00 app ly to the case at bar.3

III. Whether an underlyi ng offense of ar med bank robbery

[under] 18 U.S .C. § 211 3(d ) ve rsus una rme d ba nk r obb ery [u nde r] 18 U.S .C. § 2113(a) i s [an] enhance ment for the use or poss ession of the weapon within t he offense of convi ction, when a defendant rec eives a f ive y ear supervi sed rel ease [t erm] at time of sent encing ver sus thr ee ye ars for unarmed bank robber

y, [and] when [ ] 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) i s being applie d as [ an] en hanc eme nt. IV. Whether t

he dist rict court ‘ double count ed’ at time of the sentencing by applyi ng five y ears [s upervis ed] rel ease. Appellant ’s Brie f at 2. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), on which A cker relies, provides as follows: [I]n t he case of a defe ndant who has been sentenced to a t erm of impris onment based on a se ntenci ng range that has subs equentl y been lowered by the Sentenc ing Co mm ission pursuan t to 28 U .S.C. 994(o ), upon mo tion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its ow n m otion, th e cou rt may red uce th e term of im prison men t, after considering the f

actors set for

th in s ecti on 3553(a) t o the ext ent that the y are app licable, if such a redu ction is c onsiste nt w ith app licable policy stat ements is sued bythe Sente ncing Commission. Id . This s ecti on does not help Acker, however, as U.S.S. G. amendments 591 and 599, upon which he rel ies, are not a pplica ble here . Although it refe rences ot her guidel ine section s and com men tary, amen dm ent 59 1 is, as th e Sen tencin g C om missio n exp lains in the amendment, intende d to addres s a circuit c onflic t regarding the a pplication of t

he enh anc ed p ena lties in U.S .S.G . § 2D 1.2 d ealin g w ith ce rtain dru g offen ses. See U.S. Sentenci ng Guideline s Manual app. C, vol . II , at 30 (2003). Clearl y, theref ore,
ame ndm ent 59 1 can not b e germ ane in this ban k rob bery and firearm s use c ase. N or is amendment 599 appli cable, as it is i ntended t o clari fy t

he circ umstances in which a4

defendant s entenced for a violation of 18 U.S. C. § 924(c) in conjunct ion with convi ctions for other offenses may

recei ve weapon enhancements cont ained i n the sent encing gui delin es f

or th ose oth er o ffe nse s. See id. at 69-70. In thi s case t he court di d not enhance under t

he guidel ines t

he sentenc e it imposed under section 2113(d) by r eason of the posse ssion of t

he fire arm, as t

he use and thus the posse ssion of t he weapon was an elem ent o f the offens e. As the government c ontends, theref ore, t his cas e involve s nothi ng more than a situati on in which the two offen ses involved, the bank robbery and weapons offenses, sh ar e aco mmonel eme nt , p os se ss io n of a f ir earm. Of c our se , w e d o no t reg ar d the two sentence s as ref

lect ing an unjus tifi ed double counting of Acker’s possessi on of the fire arm . See , e.g. , Un ited Sta tes v. M cCa rty , 36 F. 3d 13 49 , 13 61 (5 th C ir. 1 99 4) . F in all y, we reject Acker’s cont ention t

hat the fully

authori zed peri od of supervi sed rel ease ( see 18 U.S.C. § § 3559(a )(2), 3583(b)(1) ) somehow demonstrat es that his bank r obbery

sentence
was e nhance d by

re as on o f hi s po ss es si on o f the f ir ear m. The orders ent ered May 5, 2003, and May 16, 2003, willbe affir med.

/s/ Morton I. Greenberg Circuit

Judge