2009 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 2-6-2009 

# U SA v . W i l son-G arc i a 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 . 07-4463

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . W i l s on-G ar c i a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1910. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1910T he H onor abl e Thom as S. E l l i s I I I , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof V i r gi ni a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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- 4463

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RI GOB E RT O WI L S ON- GAR CI A, A ppel l ant

_______________ O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00055) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

J anuary8, 2009 B efor e: C H A G A R E S, H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges , and EL L I S D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: February6, 2009)

__________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge.2

R i gobert o W i l s on- G ar ci a appe al s fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on, ar gui ng thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tpl ai nl yerr ed i n i ns truct i ng the j uryathi s tr i al . T he thr es hol d ques t i on b ef o re u s is w h ethe r, ev en assu m ing that the ju ryinstruction s w ere erro n eo u s, the e rrors w ere inv it ed an d thu s n o n rev iew ab le w h ere W il so n -G arc ia’s pro p o sed instruction s w ere the exac ti ns truct i ons thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tactual l ydel i ver ed t o the j ury , and W i l s onG ar ci a s peci fi cal l yr eques t ed thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tgi ve thos e i ns truct i ons . W e conc l ude that an yerro r i n this case w as in v it ed , an d w e w il l th ere fo re a ff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly sum m ari ze t he essenti al fact s. O n M ar ch 24, 2006, W i l s on- G ar ci a, a pr i s on i nm at e, w as i nvol ved i n an al t er cat i on w i th a fe l l ow i nm at e. Sever al offi cer s of the Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons tr i ed t o br eak up the fi ght , or der i ng the i nm at es t o s t op and eve ntual l yphy s i cal l yr es tr ai ni ng them . A t som e p o int du ri n g this alt erc ati o n , W il so n -G arc ia i n jured tw o o f th e o ff

icers w ith a p a iro f

s c is s o rs h e w a s h o ld in g . O n J ul y11, 2007, W i l s on- G ar ci a w as char ged w i th tw o cr i m i nal count s ( one for eac h offi cer ) of i nt ent i onal l yand unl aw ful l yfor ci bl yas s aul t i ng, r es i s t i ng, oppos i ng, i m pedi ng, i nt i m i dat i ng, i nt er fer i ng, and i nfl i ct i ng bodi l yi nj uryupon offi cer s of the F e d e ra l B u re a u o f

P riso n s w h ile th e yw e re e n g a g e d in th e p e rf o rm a n c e o f

th e ir d u ties , in3

vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 111( a) ( 1) and ( b) . W i th the as s i s t ance of couns el , W i l s onG a rc ia c o n te s te d th e s e c h a rg e s a n d p ro c e e d e d to tr ia l. A ttr i al , W i l s on- G ar ci a ar gued thatatthe t i m e he i nj ur ed the off i cer s , he w as i n a f ig h t f o r h is lif e a g a in s t a s u b s ta n tia lly la rg e r i n m a te w h o w a s a tta c k in g h im w ith a s h a n k . H e c la im e d th a t h e w a s a c tin g in s e lf -d e f e n s e a n d d id n o t in te n d to in ju re th e o f

f ic e rs . A f ter a tw o -d a ytrial, th e ju ryf o u n d W ilso n -G a rc ia g u iltyo f o n e c o u n t an d a c q u itt e d h im of the other . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d W i l s on- G ar ci a t o 150 m onths i m pr i s onm ent c o n se c u tiv e to a n o th e r se n ten c e h e w a s s e rv in g , an d im p o se d a $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. W ils o n -G a rc ia f

ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. B eca us e W i l s onG a rc ia is a p p e a lin g f

ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ictio n , w e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See Fl anaga n v. U ni t ed St at es , 465 U . S. 259, 263 ( 1984) ; C at l i n v. U n it ed S tat es, 32 4 U . S . 2 2 9 , 2 3 3 (19 4 5 ). G en era ll y , w e “ rev iew juryinstruction s fo r abus e of di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hethertheyar e mi s l eadi ng ori nadequa t e, ” and w e have pl enaryr evi ew over“w hether the i ns truct i ons m i s s t at e the l aw . ” W oods on v. Scot tPaperC o. , 109 F. 3d 913, 929 ( 3d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) . Wh e r e th e mo v i n g p a r tyf a i l e d t o ma k e a t i me l yo b j e c t i o n , h o we v e r , we r evi ew forpl ai n err or . See H ur l eyv. A t l . C i tyPol i ce D ep’ t , 174 F. 3d 95, 123- 124 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . T he pl ai n err ordet erm i nat i on i s l eftt o the s ol e di s cr et i on of thi s C our tand4

thi s di s cr et i on s houl d be exe r ci s ed s par i ngl y . I d. at123. I f the movi ng partyes t abl i s hes th a t“ ( 1 ) th e c o u r te r r e d ; ( 2 ) th e e r r o rwa s o b v i o u s u n d e rth e l a w a tth e t i me o f r e v i e w; a n d (3 ) th e e rro r a f

f e c ted su b sta n tial rig h ts,” th e n th is C o u rt m ay g ran t th e m o v ing p arty ’s m o tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . G u a d a lu p e , 4 0 2 F .3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 0 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e o n ly e x e rc ise o u r d isc re tio n to g ra n t re lief , h o w e v e r, “if

th e e rro r a f

f e c ts th e f a irn e ss , inte g rity o r p u b lic p e rc e p tio n o f

th e p ro c e e d in g .” Id . M or eover , w her e a pa r tyi nvi t es the al l eged e rr o r, t h a t e rr o r c a n n o t s u p p o rt re v e rs a l. U n ite d S ta te s v . W e s t I n d ie s T ra n s p o rt , In c ., 127 F . 3 d 2 9 9 , 3 0 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). III . W ilso n -G a rc ia c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p lain e rro r w h e n (1 ) it fai l ed t o su a sp o n te a lter th e se lf -d e f e n se in stru c tio n th a t W ilso n -G a rc ia r e q u e ste d to sta te thats el f- defe ns e w as a compl et e def ens e t o anyconducts etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 111, not j us tas s aul t ; and ( 2) i tfai l ed t o su a sp o n te al t erthe ( al l egedl y“fl aw ed and c onfus i ng”) i n t e n ti n s tru c t i o n th a tW i l s o n - G a r c i a r e q u e s t e d t o s t a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y thatthe G overnm ent h a d t o p r o v e th a tW i l s o n - G a r c i a i n t e n d e d t o c a u s e b o d i l y i n j u ry. W e c o n c lu d e th a t if ther e w as anyerr oratal l , i tw as “i nvi t ed err or ” thatcannotnow s erve as a bas i s for re v e rsa l. In U n ite d S ta te s v . W e s t I n d ie s T ra n s p o rt , In c ., w e h eld th at an erro r i n the ju ry in stru c tio n s w a s “ in v ited e rro r” th a t d id n o t su p p o rt re v e rsa l w h e re d e f e n d a n ts f a iled to r eques tthe i ns truct i on thattheyas s ert ed on appe al and w her e “thei rpr opos ed i ns truct i onW e have r ecogni zed a n exce pt i on t o the “i nvi t ed err or ” doctr i ne “[ w ] her e a 1 defe ndants ubm i t s pr opos ed j uryi ns truct i ons i n r el i ance on curr entl aw , and on di r ect appea l thatl aw i s decl ar ed cons t i tut i onal l yi nfi r m . ” W es tI ndi es T r ans p. , I nc. , 127 F. 3d at 305. T hats i tuat i on i s notpr es ent ed i n thi s cas e. 5 w a s re m a rk a b ly sim ila r t o th a t a c tu a lly d e liv e re d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt .” 1 2 7 F .3 d a t 3 0 6 . M or eover , i n 2660 W oodl eyR oad J oi ntV entur e v. I T T Sher at on C orp. , w e hel d thateven a “f undament al err or ” i n j uryi ns truct i ons cannots erve as a bas i s forr ever s al w her e the defe ndantfai l ed t o s ubm i ta corr ecti ns truct i on. 369 F. 3d 732, 744 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( not i ng th a t e v e n “ a s s u m in g th a t th e in s tru c tio n w a s w ro n g , it w a s ta n ta m o u n t to in v ite d e rr o r” ). T h e f ac tual co n text h ere ca ll s fo r ap p li ca ti o n o f th e “ inv it ed erro r” d o ctri n e. In fa ct, this case is easier tha n W est Ind ies T ran sp o rtan d 2 6 6 0 W o o d elyR o ad Jo int V en ture beca us e W i l s on- G ar ci a’ s pr opos ed i ns truct i ons w er e the exac ti ns truct i ons thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tactual l ydel i ver ed t o the j ury , and W i l s on- G ar ci a s peci fi cal l yr eques t ed that th e D is tr ic t C o u rt g iv e th o s e in s tru c tio n s . W i l s on- G ar ci a ca nnotnow compl ai n of al l eged err or s thathe hi m s el f i ntr oduced. 1 F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.