2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-23-2013

USA v. Jonathan Triminio

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1756

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Jonathan Triminio" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 47.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/47
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

No. 13-1756

______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JONATHAN TRIMINIO,

Appellant

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-12-00698-001)

Honorable Katherine S. Hayden, District Judge

______________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 8, 2013

BEFORE: FUENTES, GREENBERG, and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 23, 2013)

______________

OPINION OF THE COURT

______________

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal from a judgment of 

conviction and sentence entered on March 13, 2013, on the basis of appellant Jonathan 

Triminio’s plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a single count of unlawful 
2

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The 

District Court sentenced Triminio to a 73-month custodial term to be followed by a threeyear term of supervised release. The Court calculated that Triminio had a final offense 

level of 25 with 8 criminal history points, making an advisory sentencing range of 84 to 

105 months. The offense level included a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §

2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for unlawful possession of body armor.

Triminio appeals only from the use of this enhancement in calculating his offense 

level as he claims that its use violated his due process rights because he was not 

convicted of a body armor offense and he did not stipulate that he had possession of body 

armor. He principally relies on Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), United 

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 

296, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348

(2000). He does not contend, however, that, in terms, the enhancement could not be 

applied to his possession of body armor, though he does contend that his plea agreement 

did not contemplate the use of the enhancement in the calculation of his sentencing level. 

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have 

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although, here, as in most

cases, we exercise an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a sentence, Triminio 

contends that the District Court erred as a matter of law by including the 4-level body 

armor enhancement in calculating his offense level and thus, to the extent of considering 

that argument, we exercise plenary review.
3

We will affirm. Triminio complains that the District Court, by finding as a fact 

that he had possession of body armor, violated the rule that he contends that the cases he 

cites established. But clearly the Court did not violate the principles recognized in those

cases. Although possession of body armor could have been charged as a separate offense

so that if a jury convicted him of that offense he could have been sentenced for its 

commission, the government did not make any such charge. Rather, the government 

referred to the body armor only as a basis for enhancement of Triminio’s guidelines 

offense level and, in doing so, in no way permitted an increase in the statutory sentence 

that could have been imposed on him or in any other way affected any mandatory 

minimum or maximum sentence applicable to him. Here the maximum sentence – with 

or without the 4-level enhancement – was ten years and the enhancement did not increase 

any mandatory minimum that the Court was obliged to impose. Accordingly, the Court 

by the use of the enhancement simply increased the advisory but not binding sentencing 

range to which Triminio was subject. Thus, United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 559 (3d 

Cir. 2007) (en banc), which held “that facts relevant to the advisory United States 

Sentencing Guidelines need not be submitted to a jury” is controlling here and we are 

constrained to affirm.

We make three additional comments. First, as we noted above, Triminio relies on 

the very recent case of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013). But that case 

holds that “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum [sentence for an offense] is an 

‘element’ [of the offense] that must be submitted to the jury.” Id. at 2155. Thus, it is the 

counterpoint to Apprendi which held the same thing with respect to increases in the 
4

statutory maximum sentence for an offense. But Alleyne, like Apprendi, is not applicable 

here because the body armor enhancement did not increase any mandatory minimum 

sentence to which Triminio was subject. Second, we see nothing in the record that in any 

way made it unfair for the District Court to use the enhancement in calculating his 

offense level. To the contrary when the Court calculated his sentencing range it acted 

consistently with the provisions of Triminio’s plea agreement.

Our final comment is that if Triminio is correct it is difficult to understand how a 

district court ever can make a finding that is the basis for a guidelines sentencing level 

enhancement. It is ironic that Triminio is making his argument in a case in which he does 

not even claim that the District Court erred in its finding that he possessed body armor as 

he does not deny being in possession of it.

For the foregoing reasons the order entered on March 13, 2013, will be affirmed.