2010 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 7-7-2010 

# U S A v . J e r r ick Limehou se 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 . 09-4473

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 . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 sit y 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 2010 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 sit y 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 . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J e r r ick L ime hous e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1001. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1001NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 09- 4473 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v . J ERRI CK

BA RT LI ME HO US E,

Appe l l ant On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e E asternD istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Cr i m i na l No. 2- 08- c r - 00223- 001) Distri ct Judg e: Ho n. J. Cu rt is Joy ner Subm itte d P ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

June 22, 2010 BE FO RE : SMITH , FISHE R andCO WEN, Circ uit Jud ges

( Fi l e d: Jul y

7, 2010) OP INI ON COW EN, Ci r c ui t

Judge Je rr ic k L im ehou se appeal s the Distri ct Co urt’ s dec is ion to enh ance his s ente nce un d e r th e A rme dC ar e e r

C r i mi n a l A c t

( “ A C C A ” ) , 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) . W e w i l l a f f i rm.In iti a lly , h e a lso c h a llen g e d h is 1 9 9 0 c o n v ictio n f o r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to 1 di s t r i but e; how ever , he w i t hdr ew hi s obj ect i on t o t he i ncl us i on of t hi s convi ct i on dur i ng s ent enci ng. A ccor di ngl y , our r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o hi s chal l enge t o i ncl us i on of t he 1991 c o n v ic tio n (C P 9 1 1 2 -4 7 3 3 ). 2 I . BA CK GR OU ND L im eh o u se p lead edg u ilty to o n e co un t o f

co n sp iracy , inv io latio no f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , an dtw o co un ts o f

p o ssessio no f

a f irearm o r amm un itio nb y

a co n v ictedf

elo n , in v io latio no f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). D urin g h is p lea co llo quy , h e reserv edth e rig h t to chal le ng e the applic abil it y of the ACC A enh ance m ent, bu t a dm itte d that his re cord incl ud ed thre e pri or Penn sylvania conv ic ti on s, on e for bu rglary and two fo r drug-rel at ed o f f en ses. The pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i gat i on r e port ( “ PSR” ) i de nt i fi e d the s e thr e e pr i or co n v ictio n s an dreco mm en d eda sen ten cin g en h an cem en t un d er th e A C C A . L im eh o u se ch allen g edth e in clu sio no f h is 1 9 9 1 co n v ictio nf

o r p o ssessio nw ithin ten t to d istrib u te ( CP 9112- 4733) on the gr ound that the gove rnm e nt

fa i l e d t o pr ovi de s uffi c i e nt doc um e nt at i on that

the c onvi c t i on at

i s s ue qua l i fi e d a s a“ s e r i ous dr ug offe ns e ” unde r

the AC CA . Lim ehou se ar gu ed that the r ec ords subm itte d regardi ng that conv ic ti on ar e 1 am bi guous a s t o whe the r

he wa s c onvi c t e d of a“ s e r i ous dr ug offe ns e ” or

al e s s e r drugr e l at e d c har ge . The gove rnm e nt ’ s doc um e nt at i on i nc l ude d thr e e c e rt i fi e d r e c or ds fr om the Comm on Pl e a s Court of Phi l a de l phi ar e l at e d t o Li m e hous e ’ s c onvi c t i on. Fi r s t , the r e c or d of c onvi c t i on s t at e s that Li m e hous e wa s c har ge d wi th:Ini t i al l y , t his do cum ent charged L i m eho use w i t h five cou nts , bu t t w o o f t hese 2 c o u n ts w e re c ro ss e d o u t an d a re n o t at iss u e o n a p p e a l. 3 80 10 9 - - KN OW ING OR INT EN TI ON AL LY PO SS ES SING A C ON TR OL LE D S UB ST AN CE 780- 113) 16) 80 40 6 - - MANU FA CT URE, DE LI VE RY OR PO SS ES SI ON W I TH INT EN T T O M AN UF AC TU RE OR DELI VER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 780- 113) 30) T h is reco rdd idn o t sp ecif y th e p articu lar co n tro lledsub stan ce at issu e. S eco n d , th e g o v ern m en t sub m ittedth e in f o rm atio n , o r ch arg in g in stru m en t, indicati ng that

Lim ehou se was c harged with thre e c ou nts. Th e fir st coun t a ss erts that 2 Li m e hous e “ UNLAW FULLY DI D KNOW INGLY AND INTENTI ONALLY POSSESS A C ON TR OL LE D S UB ST AN CE , TO WIT - COC AINE .” Th e s ec on d state s that Li m e hous e “ FELONI OUSLY DI D MANUFACTURE, DELI VER, OR POSSESS W I TH INT EN T T O M AN UF AC TU RE OR DE LI VE R ACO NT RO LL ED SU BS TANC E C LA SS IFIED UND ERSC HE DU LE I, II ORII I. ” The thir d state s that Li m e hous e “ FELONI OUSLY DI D MANUFACTURE, DELI VER, OR POSSESS W I TH INT EN T T O M AN UF AC TU RE OR DE LI VE R ACO NT RO LL ED SU BS TANC E C LA SS IFIED UND ERSC HE DU LE IV.” No ta bly , the se condand third co un ts are silen t as to th e p articu lar sub stan ce in v o lv ed . Th e final do cum ent i ncluded in the ce rt ifie d rec ords fromthe Comm on Plea s Court i s the c r i m i na lc om

pl a i nt . I t i ndi c at e s that

Li m e hous e wa s arr e s t e d for de l i ve r i ngL im e h o u se a lso a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in o v e rru lin g h is o b jec tio n to 3 th e P S R ’s in c lu sio n o f

a f o u r-le v e l en h a n c e m e n t b a se d o n th e u se o f a f ire a rm in connec t i on w i t h anot herfel onyoffe ns e underU . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) . T he i ncl us i on of t hi s enhanc ement w oul d r es ul t i n t he ca l cul at i on of a ba s e off ens e l evel of 32. E xcl udi ng c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e § 2 K 2 .1 (b )(6 ) e n h a n c e m e n t, t h e sa m e b a se lev e l o f f e n se , 3 2 , is 4 on e via l of cra ck cocai ne to an info rm ant and , upo n arr es t, was fou ndto po ss es s an a ddi t i ona l thi rt e e n vi a l s of c r a c k c oc a i ne . Thi s doc um e nt wa s s i gne d by

the offi c e r

who arrestedL im eh o u se. I n a ddi t i on t o the s e c e rt i fi e d r e c or ds , the gove rnm e nt s ubm i tt e d ac opy

of Li m e hous e ’ s wr i tt e n gui l ty pl e afor the 1991 c onvi c t i on. The gui l ty pl e ai de nt i fi e s the c r i m e c har ge d a s pos s e s s i on wi th i nt e nt t o de l i ve r

and i ndi c at e s that

Li m e hous e fa c e d a m ax im u m term o f im p riso n m en t o f

tenyears. L im eh o u se sig n edth e g u ilty p lea, as d id h is atto rn ey , th e p ro secu to r, an dth e j u d g e. The Di s tr i c t

Court r e vi e we d the s e doc um e nt s and pe rm i tt e d the part i e s t o ar gue thei r posit ions du ri ng the s ente ncing h eari ng . Unp er suaded, the Distri ct Co urt r ejec te d Li m e hous e ’ s obje c t i on and e nhanc e d hi s s e nt e nc e unde r the ACCA, whi c h r e s ul t e d i n a m andatory

m inim um te rm of im pris on m ent of f

ifte en years . The Distri ct Co urt de t e rm i ne d that

hi s ba s e offe ns e l e ve l wa s 32 and hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c at e gory wa s s i x, ther eby m aking h is advisory

gu idel ines rang e 210 to 26 2 m on ths. Th e Dis tr ic t Cou rt sen ten cedh im

to a term o f im p riso n m en t o f

2 1 6 m o n th s. O nap p eal, L im eh o u se arg u es th at th e d o cu m en tatio no f h is 1 9 9 1 co n v ictio nis am b ig u o u s an das su ch , can n o t b e in clu d edinth e D istrict C o urt’s A C C A an aly sis. 3r e a c h e d b y t h e e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r t h e A C C A , w h i c h t h i s C o u r t w i l l a f f i r m . A c c o r d i n g l y, we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s Li me h o u s e ’ s § 2 K2 . 1 ( b ) ( 6 ) a r g u me n t a s o u r r u l i n g o n t h e ACCA e n h a n c e m e n t is d is p o s itiv e o n th e is s u e o f th e b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l c a lc u la tio n . 5 I I . DI SCUSSI ON Unde r the ACCA, anyone who “ vi ol at e s s e c t i on 922( g) . . . and ha s thr e e pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons by

any c ourt r e fe rr e d t o i n s e c t i on 922( g) ( 1) of thi s t i t l e for avi ol e nt fe l ony o r a serio u s dru g o f

f en se, o r b o th , co mm ittedo no ccasio n s d if f eren t f ro m o n e an o th er . . . s ha l l be . . . i m

pr i s one d not

l e s s than fi ft e e n ye ar s . . . . ” 18 U. S. C. § 924( e ) ( 1) . The ACCA de fi ne s “ s e r i ous dr ug offe ns e ” a s i nc l udi ng offe ns e s “ unde r St at e l aw, i nvol vi ng m anu f acturin g , d istrib u tin g , o r p o ssessin g w ithin ten t to m anu f acture o r d istrib u te, a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t anc e . . . for whi c h am axi m

um t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt

of t e n ye ar s or m ore i s pre sc ri bed b y

law . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e )( 2)(A)(i i) . Lim ehou se was c harged wi th vi ol at i ng 35 Pa . Cons . St at . § 780- 113( a ) ( 30) . The m axi m um s e nt e nc e that

m ay be im p o sedun d er th is statu te v aries d ep en d in g up o nth e p articu lar dru g p o ssessed . A conv ic ti on fo r the po ss es si on of coca ine wou ld re sult

in a m axim

um se ntence of

te n ye ar s ; whe r e a s , ac onvi c t i on for othe r s ubs t anc e s woul d r e s ul t

i n al owe r

m axi m um sen ten ce. Co m

p a re35 Pa. Con s. Stat . § 78 0-11 3(f)(1), ( 1.1) w ith 3 5 P a. C o n s. S tat. § 78 0-11 3(f)(2)-( 4). Court s a ppl y ac at e gor i c a l a

ppr oa c h t o de t e rm i ni ng whe the r apr i or c onvi c t i on qu alif ies as a serio u s dru g o f

f en se. Ta ylor v. Un ited States , 495 U. S. 575, 600 ( 1990) (“T h e C o u rt s o f A p p ea ls un ifo rm lyh av e h eld th at § 9 2 4 (e) m andat es a for m al cat egor i cal6

appr oach, l ooki ng onl yt o t he s t at ut or ydefi ni t i ons of t he pr i or offe ns es , and not t o t he par t i cul ar fac t s under l y i ng t hos e convi ct i ons . W e fi nd t he r eas oni ng of t hes e ca s es per s uas i ve. ” ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ) . H ow ever , w hen adhe r ence t o t he ca t egor i cal appr oach doe s not r es ol ve t he cour t ’ s i nqui r yas t o t he convi ct i on obt ai ned, a cour t m ay cons i der“t he t er m s of t he cha r gi ng document , t he t er m s of a pl ea a gr eement or t r ans cr i pt of col l oquybet w een j udge and de fenda nt i n w hi ch t he fa ct ual bas i s for t he pl ea w as confi r m ed byt he def

endant , or t o s om e compar abl e j udi ci al r ecor d of t hi s i nfor m at i on. ” Shepar d v. U

ni t ed St at es , 5 4 4 U .S . 1 3 , 2 6 (2 0 0 5 ); see al so U nit ed S t ates v. H

ow ard , 599 F. 3d 269, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t o es t abl i s h car eeroffe nder s t at us , “t he gover nm entm ayr el yon cer t i fi ed copi es of convi ct i ons ” as w el l as “t he t er m s of t he pl ea agr eement , t he cha r gi ng document , t he t r ans cr i pt of col l oquybet w een j udge and defe ndant , and ot hercompar abl e j udi ci al r ecor ds of s uffi ci ent r el i abi l i t y ” ( ci t i ng Sh epa rd , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 1 6 )) . As s e t forth above , ne i the r

the r e c or d of c onvi c t i on nor the c har gi ng i ns tr

um e nt de fi ni t i ve l y

r e s ol ve the am

bi gui ty a s t o whe the r

Li m e hous e wa s arr e s t e d for pos s e s s i on of coca ine or s om e other

substance, wh ic h cou ld no t s er ve as the bas is of

an enhancem ent und er

the ACC A. Fu rther, we cann ot consider the arr es ti ng of

fice r’ s co m p lain t, ev enif

it is a certif

iedreco rd . See S

h ep a rd , 5 4 4 U .S . at 1 6 (h o ld in g th at a s e nt e nc i ng c ourt

m ay not “ l ook t o pol i c e r e port s or c om pl a i nt a ppl i c at i ons t o de t e rm i ne w h eth er anearlier g u ilty

p lea” qu alif

iedas a p rio r v io len t f

elo n y un d er th e A C C A ).7

H o w ev er, th e w rittenp lea ag reem en t reso lv es th e am b ig u ity . It clearly

states L im eh o u se was s ub ject to a m axim

um se ntence of

te n y ears , which m akes this prior drug-rel at ed conv ic ti on a “ se ri ou s drug o ff ense .” It ap p ears th at L im eh o u se ch allen g es th e au th en ticity o f th is d o cu m en t f

o r th e f irst t i m e on a ppe a l ; howe ve r , a s s uc h, that c ha l l e nge i s wa i ve d. Mor e ove r , thi s ar gum e nt l a c k s me r i t . I ns i g n i n g th e a g r e e me n t , L i me h o u s e a c kn o w l e d g e dth at h e r e a dth e t e rms of the a gr e e m e nt

and unde r s t ood the m . I nde e d, the judge hi m s e l f, i n s i gni ng the ag reem en t, certif

iedth at h e ex p lain edth e m ax im u m sen ten ce av ailab le, tenyears, to Li m e hous e . Li m e hous e , hi s att orne y , the pr os e c ut or , and the judge e a c h s i gne d the ag reem en t. T h ere is n o th in g to su g g est th at th is d o cu m en t is un reliab le. I I I . CONCLUSI ON As se t forth abov e, we willaffirm the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s dete rm inat ion to sente nce Li m e ho us e un de r

the AC CA .