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 3-24-2010 

# U SA v . T e rrel l B rice 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 . 08-4554

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git 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 sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . T e r r e l l B r ic e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1654. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1654

### Honor a bl e Yve tt e Kane , Chi e f Di s tr i c t Court Judge for

the Mi ddl e Di s tr i c t

of * 

### Pe nns yl vani a , s i tt i ng by

de s 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. 08- 4554

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TERRELL BRI CE, A p p e llan t.

_____________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 685) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Paul S. D i amond S u b m it ted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

J anuary26 , 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

and K A N E , D i s t r i ctJ udge.

* ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

### Th e Dis tric t Court had j uris dict ion p ursuant t o 1 8 U .S.C. § 32 31 . This Court has 1 

### juri sdic ti onpurs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1 and18 U.S.C. § 3 74 2. We exer ci se plenar y re view ov er

a dis tric t c ourt ’s ruli ng s on quest ions of law andov er

a dis tric t c ourt ’s in terp retatio no f

th e S en ten cin g G u id elin es. Uni te d States v . Doe , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 0 5 , 3 0 7 n .2 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 9 ); Un ited Statesv. Ma te o , 560 F.3d15 2, 15 4 (3dCir. 20 09 ). “Whether a part ic ular crim e c on st it

utes a c ri m e of v iole nce i s a qu es ti onof

law andthe Court ’s re view is plenar

y .” Un ited Statesv. Do rs ey , 174 F.3d33 1, 33 2 (3dCir. 19 99 ).

- 2- FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l ant , T er r el l B r i ce, pl ed gui l t yt o di s t r i but i on of coc ai ne and pos s es s i on of a fi r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on. T he pl ea a gr eemental l ow ed B r i ce t o appea l hi s des i gnat i on as a ca r eeroffe nder . A ts ent enci ng, pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U . S. S. G . ”) § 4B 1. 1, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded t hatB r i ce w as a ca r eeroffe nderbas ed on hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons fors i m pl e as s aul tand forpos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance w i t h i nt entt o del i ver . A s a ca r eeroffe nder , B r i ce f ace d an advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of 2 6 2 t o 3 2 7 mo n t h s i mp r i s o n me n t . On a p p e a l , Br i c e c o n t e n d s t h a ta f t e rt h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n B egay v . U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 3 U . S . 1 3 7 , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 5 8 1 (20 0 8 ), s i m pl e as s aul tdoes notqual i fyas a cr i m e of vi ol ence as t hatt er m i s defi ned i n t he ca r eer o f f e n d e r G u id e lin e , U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .2 (a ). F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill v a c a te B r i ce’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s opi ni on and our r ece ntpr ece dent i al opi ni on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 5 8 7 F . 3 d 2 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 1



### I. Be c aus e we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y for the part i e s , we onl y

di s c us s the fa c t s and

### In re le vant part , U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 p rovides that “ [a] d efendant is a c ar ee r 2 

### offe nde r i f ( 1) the de fe ndant

wa s at l e a s t e i ght e e n ye ar s ol d at

the t i m e the de fe ndant co mm ittedth e in stan t o f

f en se o f co nv ictio n ; (2 ) th e in stan t o f f en se o f co nv ictio nis a fe l ony that i s e i the r ac r i m e of vi ol e nc e or

ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t anc e offe ns e ; and ( 3) the defend ant has at

le as t t wo prior fel on y

conv ic ti on s of either a

crim e of v iole nce or a co n tro lledsub stan ce o f

f en se.”

- 3- proceedi ng s t o the exte nt nece ss ar y fo r the re soluti onof

the c as e. B r i ce w as char ged i n a t hr ee- countI ndi ct m entas fol l ow s : di s t r i but i on of coc ai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ( C ountO ne) ; pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug t r aff

i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( C ountT w o) ; and pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) ( C ount T hr ee) . A thi s t r i al , t he j ur yw as unabl e t o r eac h a unani m ous ver di ct , and the D i s t r i ct C our tdecl ar ed a mi s t r i al . A s econd tr i al w as s chedul ed, butbefor e t he r et r i al , B r i ce opt ed t o pl ead gui l t yt o C ount s O ne and Thr ee. I n hi s pl ea a gr eement , B r i ce r es er ved t he ri g h t t o ap p ea l his de sign ati o n as a ca ree r of fe n d er. B r i ce’ s Pr es ent ence R epor t( “PSR ”) l i s t ed thr ee pr i oradul tconvi ct i ons : a 1999 convi ct i on fors i m pl e as s aul t , a 2000 convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance w i t h i nt entt o del i ver , and a 2003 c onvi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance and forfl i ghtfr om t he pol i ce. T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce c oncl uded t hatt w o of t hes e t hr ee offe ns es — t he convi ct i on fors i m pl e as s aul tand the convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance w i t h i nt entt o del i ver— s er ved as pr edi cat e off ens es forpurpos es of t he ca r eeroffe nderG ui del i ne, U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1. A s a ca r eeroffe nder , B r i ce ha d an 2I n Penns y l vani a, a per s on i s gui l t yof s i m pl e as s aul ti f he: 3 (1) a tt em p ts t o ca u se o r i n tention all y , k n o w ing ly , o r reck lesslyca u ses b o d il yinjury to an o ther; (2) n eg li g en tl yca u ses b o d il yinjuryto an o ther w ith a d ea d lyw ea p o n ; [o r] (3 ) a ttem p ts b yp h y sic a l m e n a c e to p u t an o th e r in f e a r o f im m in e n t se rio u s b o d ily i nj ur y ; or ( 4) conce al s orat t empt s t o conce al a hypoder m i c nee dl e on hi s per s on and i n t e n t i o n a l l y o rk n o w i n g l y 

### penetr at es a l aw enfo rc em ent off ic er or an of fice r or an e m pl oye e of an c orr e c t i ona li ns t i t ut i on, c ounty

ja i lor pr i s on, de t e nt i on fa c i l i ty or m e nt a lhos pi t a ldur i ng the c our s e of an arr e s t or any s e ar c h of the pe r s on. T h e term “crim e o f

v io len ce” is d ef

in edinU .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .2 (a) as “any o f f en se 4 

### un der federa l or s tate law, punishable by im pris on m ent for a t er

m exce eding o ne year, that . . . has as an el em ent the use, atte m pted use, or thre at ened use of p hy si ca l force a ga i ns t the pe r s on of anothe r , or . . . i s bur gl ary

of adwe l l i ng, ar s on, or

e xt ort i on, i nvol ve s us e of e xpl os i ve s , or othe rwi s e i nvol ve s c onduc t that pr e s e nt s as e r i ous p o ten tial risko f

p hy sical in

j ury to an o th er.”

- 4- o ff en se lev el of

3 4 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f V I, resu lt ing in an ad v isory G uidel i nes range o f 26 2 to 327 m on t hs i m pri sonm ent. A bsent car eer offen der st atus, B r i ce’ s offe ns e l evel w oul d have be en 24 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egor yI V , r es ul t i ng in a n a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 7 7 to 9 6 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. A t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , B ri ce o b jected to h is cl assifica ti o n as a ca ree r of fe n d er, ar gui ng t hathi s convi ct i on fors i m pl e as s aul tdi d notqual i fyas a cr i m e of vi ol ence fort he p u rpo se o f d esig n ati o n as a ca ree r of fe n d er u n d er the S en tenc ing G u idelines . In 3 par t i cul ar , B r i ce a s s er t ed t hatundert he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n B egay , sim p le a ss a u lt w a s n o t a c rim e o f v io len c e a s it w a s n o t “r o u g h lysim ilar, in k in d a s w e ll as in degr ee of

r i s k pos ed” t o t he cr i m es enumer at ed i n t he def i ni t i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence . 4 B egay , 128 S. C t . at1585 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent

### - 5-

an d ruled that sim p le assa u ltq u ali fied as a crim e o f v iolen ce u n d er B egay and ourpr eB egay cas e l aw . B r i ce, acc or di ngl y , w as s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe nder . T he D i s t r i ct C our tvar i ed dow nw ar d fr om t he advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of 262 t o 327 m ont hs im p riso n m e n t an d im p o se d a se n ten c e o f 1 8 0 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. 

### II. T h e o u tco m e o f

th e in sta n t ca se is c o n tro lled b yo u r re c e n t p re c e d e n tial o p in io n in Johns on , in w h ich w e e x am ined the p rec ise q u esti o n p rese n ted b yB ri ce ’s ap p ea l. In Johns on , as i n t hi s cas e, t he governm entconce ded t hati f t he s i m pl e as s aul thad bee n comm i t t ed r eckl es s l y , i tw oul d notbe a c r i m e of vi ol ence fol l ow i ng B egay . Johns on , 587 F. 3d at209–10. ( G ov’ tB r . 21–22. ) W e hel d, how ever , t hati f t he s i m pl e as s aul tw as know i ng ori nt ent i onal , i tw oul d “pr es enta degr ee of r i s k s i m i l art o t hatpr es ent ed byt he enumer at ed cr i m es and al s o be s i m i l ari n ki nd t o t hos e off ens es ” and thus w oul d qual i fy a s a c r i me o f

v i o l e n c e u n d e rt h e d e f

i n i t i o n i n t h e c a r e e ro f

f e n d e rGu i d e l i n e , U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 .2 (a )( 2 ). Johns on , 587 F. 3d at211. A ccor di ngl y , w e r emanded forr es ent enci ng and i ns t ruct ed t he di s t r i ctcour tt o det er m i ne the m ens r ea f o r th e sim p le a ss a u lt o f f e n se to w h ic h J o h n s o n p le d g u ilty. I d. a t 2 1 3 . U n d e r th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h , su c h a n in q u iryis l i m i t ed t o t he document s out l i ned byt he Supr eme C our ti n Shepar d v. U ni t ed St at es — “‘ t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on, char gi ng document , w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , t r ans cr i pt of pl ea c ol l oquy , and anyexpl i ci tfac tual fi ndi ng byt he tr i al j udge t o w hi ch the def endant as s ent ed. ’ ” I

d. at208 ( quot i ng Sh epa rd , 5 4 4 U . S . 1 3 , 1 6 (20 0 5 )).

### - 6-

I n t he i ns t antcas e, t he governm entar gues t hatr emand i s appr opr i at e t o al l ow t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o as cer t ai n t he m ens r ea o f B ric e ’s p rio r c o n v ictio n f o r sim p le a ss a u lt, if pos s i bl e, fr om t he l i m i t ed uni ver s e of doc um ent s appr oved i n Sh epa rd . (G o v ’tB r. 25–26. ) T he governm entfur t heracknow l edges t hat , as of t he t i m e t hati t s br i ef w as pr epar ed, i tpos s es s ed onl yt he cha r gi ng document fort he s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on and admi t s t hat“[i ] f t hi s i s t he onl yavai l abl e r ecor d per t i nentt o t he i nqui r y , t he governm ent w i l l have t o conce de t hati tcannotes t abl i s h t hatB r i ce w as nece s s ar i l yconvi ct ed of a cr i m e of vi ol ence pr edi cat e. ” (I d. a t 2 6 .) T h e g o v e rn m e n t w a s s e e k in g , h o w e v e r, to o b tai n the tran script of

B ri ce ’s si m p le assa u ltb en ch tr ial . U n d er Sh epa rd , on r emand, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcan c ons i der“a be nch- t r i al j udge’ s for m al rul i ngs of l aw and fi ndi ngs of fac t. . . . ” 544 U . S. at20. T he appr oach a dvocat ed byt he governm enti s t he corr ectone and i s i n acc or dance w i t h ouropi ni on i n Johns on . III . F o r t h e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e v ac ate the sen tenc e im p o sed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s opi ni on and w i t h Johns on . T he r es ent enci ng pr ocee di ng i s l i m i t ed t o an i nqui r yi nt o t he m ens r ea ch ara cterizi n g B ri ce ’s pr i orconvi ct i on fors i m pl e as s aul t . I f, upon exami nat i on of t he document s per m i t t ed by Sh epa rd , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet er m i nes t hatt he s i m pl e as s aul tw as comm i t t ed i nt ent i onal l yorknow i ngl y , t he convi ct i on m ays er ve as a pr edi cat e off ens e forpurpos es o f c a re e r o f

f e n d e r sta tu s. If

, h o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt f in d s th a t th e sim p le a ss a u lt 

### was

### - 7-

comm itte d rec kles sly

or if the Dis tric t Court

cann ot conclusi vely

dete rmine the mens re a , Bric e’ s c on vict ion f

or sim ple a ss ault

willno t quali fy

as a c ri m e of v iole nce und er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a) andthus willno t s er ve as a c ar ee r off

ender predic at e off

ense un der § 4 B1 .1(a).