2006 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 3-23-2006 

# U SA v . H am ani 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 . 05-2181

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

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 l l a nova 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 2006 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . H am ani " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1393. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1393NOT 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. 05- 2181

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. W A L I S . H A M A N I a /k /a WALL AC E J . CL E M ONS W a li H a m a n i, 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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 04- cr - 00106) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R ober tB . K ugl er

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February14, 2006 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 23, 2006)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . W a l i Ha ma n i p l e d g u i l t yt o o n e c o u n to f b a n k r o b b e ry , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2113( a) , and w as s ent ence d byt he D i s t r i ctC our tt o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 180 m ont hs . T he s ent ence w as bas ed, i n par t , on t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatH amani qual i fi ed as a ca r eeroffe nderundert he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . H amani a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t th is d e ter m in a tio n m u st b e m a d e b ya ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) , and wi l l a f f i r m. I. O n A ugus t28, 2003, H amani r obbed the Fl eetN at i onal B ank i n E gg H arbor T o w n sh ip, N ew Jerse y . H e e n tered the b an k , p lace d a b row n p ap er b ag o n the c o u n ter, s t at ed thathe had a bom b, and demanded money . W hen the t el l erdi d notr es pond i m m edi at el y , H amani r eac hed overt he count erand gr abbed c as h t ot al i ng $4, 571. 00, as w el l as num er ous chec ks . H e w as appr ehende d w hi l e fl eei ng t he s cene . H am ani s ub sequen t l ypled guil t yt o b ank robbery , an o ffen se that carri es a m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f

tw e n ty y e a rs im p ri s o n m e n t. See 18 U . S. C . § 2113( a) . I n t he pl ea agr eement , t he part i es s t i pul at ed that( 1) t he G ui del i nes pr es cr i bed a ba s e off ens e l evel of 20, ( 2) H amani w as s ubj ectt o a tw o- l evel i ncr eas e bec aus e he t ook t he pr oper t yof a f in a n c ial in stitu tio n , an d (3 ) h e w a s e n tit led to a tw o - o r th re e -le v e l re d u c tio n in h is offe ns e l evel foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . T he agr eementdi d notaddr es s ot herU nders ect i on 4B 1. 1, a def endanti s s ubj ectt o t he ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ementi f: 1 ( 1) t he def

endantw as atl eas tei ght een y ear s ol d att he t i m e the def endant comm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e of c onvi ct i on; ( 2) t he i ns t antoffe ns e of convi ct i on i s a fe l onyt hati s ei t hera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e; and ( 3) t he def endanthas atl eas tt w o pr i orfel ony convi ct i ons of ei t hera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e. U . S . S en tenc ing G u idelines M an u al § 4 B 1 . 1 (a). 3 enhanc ement s oradj us t m ent s undert he G ui del i nes . D ur i ng t he pl ea c ol l oquy , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt in f o rm e d H a m a n i th a t th e p lea stip u latio n s w e re n o t b in d in g o n th e c o u rt. A s ent enci ng hear i ng w as hel d on A pr i l 8, 2005. O verH amani ’ s obj ect i on, t he D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d , b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce , that h e w as a “c are er o ff en d er” u n d er se cti o n 4 B 1 . 1 o f th e G u idelines . Itn o ted th at H am an i’ s p ri o r crim inal h ist o ry i ncl uded convi ct i ons forr obberyand aggr avat ed as s aul t , bot h of w hi ch ar e cons i der ed “cr i m e[s ] of vi ol ence ” unders ect i ons 4B 1. 1 and 4B 1. 2, qual i fy i ng H amani as a “c ar eer o f f e n d e r.” 1 T he ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ementi ncr eas ed H amani ’ s offe ns e l evel fr om 22 t o 29, a n d h is c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry f ro m IV to V I. See U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 4B 1. 1( b) . H i s fi nal G ui del i nes r ange of i m pr i s onm entw as i ncr eas ed fr om 63 t o 78 m on t hs t o 1 51 t o 1 88 m on t hs. T h e D istri ct C o u rtsen tenc ed H am an i t o 1 8 0 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t and three y ea rs s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed.B eca us e the r i ght s t o a j ur yt r i al and t o pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtdo not 2 appl yt o t hes e fa ct s , w e nee d notaddr es s t he pot ent i al appl i cat i on of the pr i or - convi ct i on exce pt i on r ecogni zed i n A lm endar ez - Torr es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 3 U . S . 2 2 4 (19 9 8 ). In addi t i on, H amani does notar gue thathi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e, and thus w e nee d notcons i dert he r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . 4 II. H amani ar gues on appea l , as he di d ats ent enci ng, t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he i ns t antoffe ns e and the pr i ors t at e convi ct i ons w er e “c r i m e[s ] of vi ol ence ” vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s t o a j ur yt r i al and t o pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . W e di s agr ee. T he Supr eme C our ti n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , r ender ed the G ui del i nes m er el yadvi s or ybyexci s i ng t w o pr ovi s i ons of the Sent enci ng R eform A ctof 1984. W e have r ecogni zed, i n l i ghtof B ooker , t hatj udi ci al fac t fi ndi ng undert he G ui del i nes no l ongeri m pl i cat es t he r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al and thatt he fa ct s under l y i ng G ui del i nes enhanc ement s ar e pr oper l yfound byt he courtbya pr eponder ance of the e v id e n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , N o . 0 5 -14 4 7 , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 3 0 3 2 4 , at *4 (3d C ir . F e b . 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ); see al

so U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 40 7 F . 3d 16 2, 16 3 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). T hu s, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on undert he G ui del i nes t hatt he i ns t antoffe ns e and H am an i’ s p ri o r co n v ict ion s w ere “c ri m e[ s] of v iolen ce ” d id n o t violate h is r igh ts t o a jury t r i al and t o pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm ent of s ent ence . 2