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 7-8-2008 

# U SA v . S mith 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 . 07-3222

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 author i 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 . S mith" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 877. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/877NOT 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. 07- 3222

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GE RA L D L . S M I T H, A ppel l ant

________ O n 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 . N o. 07- cr - 00201) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es

____________ A r gued J une 6, 2008 B efore: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed J ul y8, 2008) R ober tE ps t ei n ( A r gued) Sar ah S. G annett , E s q. F e d e ra l C o m m u n ityD e f e n d e r O f f ice f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia Sui t e 540 W es t– C ur t i s C ent er 601 W al nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ant J ames R. Pavl ock ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce2

615 C hes t erSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ C H A G A R E S , C irc u it J udge. G er al d Sm i t h appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derr evoki ng hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e and i m pos i ng a s ent ence of fi ve y ear s ’ i ncar cer at i on. Sm i t h ar gues thatthe D istri ct C o u rterred in ru li n g that h is co n v ict ion o f u n law fu l r estraint/ inv o lun tary s ervi tude i n vi ol at i on of 18 Pa. C . S. § 2902( a) ( 2) cons t i tut ed a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” underU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2 and i m pos ed an unr eas onabl e s ent ence . W e di s agr ee a nd w ill a f f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .

I. A s w e w ri te o n ly f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e d o n o t s e t o u t th e f a c ts in g re a t d e ta il. O n M ay24, 2007, G er al d Sm i t h’ s pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed a pe t i t i on forV i ol at i on of Super vi s ed R el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on t he mat t er , atw hi ch the G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t S m ith p led g u iltyin sta te c o u rt to m u lti p le new offe ns es , i ncl udi ng: ( 1) t w o count s of unl aw ful r es t r ai nt/ i nvol unt arys ervi tude i n vi ol at i on of 18 Pa. C . S. § 2902( a) ( 2) ; ( 2) tw o count s of r eckl es s l yendange r i ng anotherper s on i n vi ol at i on of 18 Pa. C . S. § 2705; ( 3) var i ous drug pos s es s i on offe ns es ; and ( 4) var i ous t r aff i c off ens es . T he G overnm ental s o pr es ent ed3

evi dence t hatSm i t h had fa i l ed t o r epor tt o hi s pr obat i on offi ceri n J une, J ul y , and A ugus tof 2006. T h e D istric t C o u rt re v o k e d S m ith ’s s u p e rv ise d re lea se b a se d o n h is admi s s i ons t hathe comm i t t ed a c r i m e and f ai l ed t o r epor tt o hi s pr obat i on offi cer w hi l e on s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatSm i t h’ s convi ct i on forunl aw ful r es t r ai nt/ i nvol unt arys ervi tude cons t i tut ed a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence , ” and w as t her efor e a G r ade A vi ol at i on. T he courti m pos ed the maxi m um s ent ence of fi ve y ear s i m pr i s onm entt o be s erved cons ecut i vel yw i t h hi s s t at e s ent ence . II. W e h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n o v er the fin al de cisi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d o v e r t h e s e n te n c e im p o s e d u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). We r e v i e w de novo w hethera part i cul arcr i m e cons t i tut es a “c r i m e of vi ol ence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Si egel , 477 F. 3d 87, 90 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e r evi ew s ent ence s i m pos ed forvi ol at i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e forr eas onabl enes s . U ni t ed St at es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our t“r eas onabl yappl i ed” the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) t o t hi s cas e. U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 330 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . O ur re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs is d e f

e re n tial,

“ [ b ]e c a u se th e trial c o u rt is in th e b e st p o sitio n to d e ter m in e th e a p p ro p ria te4

s ent ence i n l i ghtof the part i cul arci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. P ark er, 46 2 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). III . S m ith a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in its c o n c lu sio n th a t h is convi ct i on forunl aw ful r es t r ai nt/ i nvol unt arys ervi tude cons t i tut ed a c r i m e of v io le n c e . W e d is a g re e . T he S entenci ng G uidel i nes def i ne the t erm “cri m e of v i olence” as [A ] nyoffe ns e underfede r al ors t at e l aw , puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm ent f o r a ter m e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r, th a t- ( 1) has as an el ementthe us e, at t empt ed us e, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on of another , or (2) . . . o r other w is e i nvolves conduct thatpr es ent

s a s er i ous pot ent i al risk of physi cal i njury to a no ther. U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( a) ( emphasi s added) . I n or dert o det erm i ne w hethera convi ct i on cons t i tut es a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” underthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , w e appl ythe “f o rm al ca tego ri ca l app roa ch , ” u n d er w h ich w e “ ‘m u st l o o k o n lyto the statu tory defi ni t i ons of the pr i oroffe ns es ’ and maynot‘ cons i derot herevi dence conce r ni ng t he def endant ’ s pr i orcr i m es , ’ i ncl udi ng, the ‘ par t i cul arfac t s under l y i ng [a] convi ct i on[] . ’ ” Si ngh v. A s hcr oft , 383 F. 3d 144, 147- 48 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng T ay l orv. U ni t ed St at es , 495 U . S. 575, 600 ( 1990) ) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. O te ro , 5 0 2 F .3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).5 T he ca t egor i cal appr oach “ r equi r es thr ee s t eps . Fi r s t , w e mustes t abl i s h for w hi ch s peci fi c cr i m es [Sm i t h] w as convi ct ed. Second, w e musti nt erpr etthe necessaryel em ents of t ho se cr i m es. T hir d, w e m ustdeterm i ne w hethertho se el ement s nece s s ar i l ybr i ng t he s t at e cr i m e w i t hi n one of the def i ni t i ons of [c r i m e of vi ol ence ] , as w e cons t rue them. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R emoi , 404 F. 3d 789, 792- 9 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A t th e re v o c a tio n h e a rin g , the G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted e v id e n c e th a t S m ith w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d underPenns y l vani a l aw of “know i ngl y. . . hol d[i ng] anotheri n a condi t i on of i nvol unt arys ervi tude. ” 18 Pa. C . S. § 2902( a) ( 2) . T he G overnm entar gued, and the D i s t r i ctC ourtagr eed, thatthe pl ai n l anguage of Penns y l vani a’ s unl aw ful r es t r ai nt/ i nvol unt arys ervi tude s t atut e “c onnot es . . . the us e of f or ce ors om e ki nd of i m pr i s onm entthatw as acc om pl i s hed byfor ce or th re a te n e d f

o rc e .” A p p e n d ix (A p p .) 3 5 . W e conc l ude thatt he convi ct i on s at i s fi es the def i ni t i on s etfor t h i n t he s econd pr ong of U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( a) . “K now i ngl y ” “hol d[i ng] ” a pe r s on

“ in v o lu n tar ily ” in v o lv e s a n in h e re n t risk o f p h y sic a l in

ju ry . E v e n if

th e p e rso n is n o t h e ld b yf

o rc e , the re is a stro n g lik e lih o o d th a t a p e rso n w o u ld u se f o rc e to r es i s tbei ng hel d, and phy s i cal i nj uryw oul d ens ue. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. L us t er , 305 F. 3d 199, 201- 02 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( det erm i ni ng thatthe cr i m e of e s cape underPenns y l vani a l aw , “byi t s natur e, pr es ent [s ] a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of p h y sical i n

juryto an o ther” ); U n it ed S tat es v . R iva, 44 0 F . 3 d 7 2 2 , 7 2 3 -25 (5th C ir .6

2006) ( expl ai ni ng t hatunderT exas l aw , unl aw ful r es t r ai nt– “w hether acc om pl i s hed byfor ce, i nt i m i dat i on, ordece pt i on” – cr eat es a s er i ous pot ent i al ri s k o f in ju ry a n d is th e re f

o re a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .2 (a )( 2 )) . M or eover , Sm i t h’ s r el i ance on B egayv. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 1581 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , i n w h i c h t h e S u p r e m e C o u r tc o n s i d e r e d th e d e f i n i t i o n o f “ v i o l e n tf

e l o n y” u n d er the A rm ed C are er C ri m inal A ct, is un av ail ing . C o n tr aryto S m ith ’s c o n ten tio n , h is c o n v ictio n f o r u n law f

u l re stra in t/i n v o lu n tar yse rv itu d e is n o t ak in t o a convi ct i on fort he s t r i ctl i abi l i t yoffe ns e of dr i vi ng underthe i nfl uence of a lco h o l. A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t S m ith ’s c o n v ictio n f o r u n law f

u l re stra in t/ i nvol unt arys ervi tude cons t i tut es a G r ade A vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e for sent encing p urposes. G i ven ou r det erm i nati on that this con vict i on con st i tutes a cri m e of v i olence, w e need no tcon si der w hetherhis con vict i on for r eckles s endange r m ental s o cons t i tut es a G r ade A vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. I V. Sm i t h ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a c ons ecut i ve s ent ence of fi ve y ear s w as unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof hi s need f orr ehabi l i t at i ve and t r ans i t i onal s ervi ces and the l ength of hi s s t at e s ent ence . A ccor di ng t o Sm i t h, the D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o gi ve meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) f a c to rs . W e d is a g re e .7 T o sa tisf

yth e re a so n a b len e ss re q u ire m e n t, th e “ re c o rd m u st d e m o n stra te t he tr i al courtgave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s . A di s t r i ct cour tneed not[how ever ] di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) f a c to rs .” P a rk e r, 4 6 2 F .3 d a t 2 7 6 (c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he D istric t C o u rt h e a rd f

ro m d e f e n se c o u n se l ab o u t S m ith ’s m e d ica l co n d iti o n a s w e ll as hi s di ffi cul t yw i t h t he tr ans i t i on back i nt o s oci etyaft ernear l y20 y ear s of i ncar cer at i on. Sm i t h al s o t es t i fi ed as t o hi s need f ortr eatm entand as s ert ed thathe w as r emors eful forhi s act i ons . T he court , how ever , r ej ect ed Sm i t h’ s r eques tfor l eni encyon t he gr ound t hatSm i t h coul d have s oughthel p fr om hi s pr obat i on o f f ic e r, b u t in s te a d f

a ile d e v e n to re p o rt to h im . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts uffi ci ent l ys t at ed i t s r eas ons forthe s ent ence i ti m pos ed and meani ngful l ycons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s i n fas hi oni ng a s ent ence appr opr i at e t o t he ci r cumst ance s of Sm i t h’ s cas e. T he s ent ence w as w i t hi n t he upperend of the advi s or ygui del i nes r ange f ora G r ade A vi ol at i on. W e conc l ude t her efor e thatt he s ent ence w as bot h pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. V. F o r all o f th e f

o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e and the s ent ence i m pos ed.