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 4-20-2010 

# U SA v . Gr a s so 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 . 07-3879

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_2010

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 2010 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 . Gr as s o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1480. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/14801 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- 3879

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. M IC H A E L J . G R A S S O , J R ., A ppel l ant 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 ( C r i m . N o. 00- cr - 00051) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S tew a rt D a lze ll Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober2, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , C H A G A R E S , a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 20, 2010)

OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge . M i chae l G r as s o appea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o amend G r as s o’ s s ent ence t o i ncl ude an or derof for fei tur e i n t he form of a money j u d g me n ti n t h e a mo u n to f $ 2 , 8 4 4 , 5 9 1 . 7 7 . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I.2

In a sm u c h a s w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e p a rties , itis n o t n e c e ss a ryto re c ite th e f a c ts orpr ocedur al hi s t or yof thi s cas e, exce pti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourbr i ef di s cus s i on. J u d g e S c h i l l e ro r i g i n a l l y s e n t e n c e d G r a s s o t o a p e r i o d o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n o f

n i n e t ys even mont hs fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and he i m pos ed a f i ne, resti tuti o n , an d a sp ec ial asse ssm en t. Ju d g e S ch il ler also g ran ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on foran or derof for fei tur e, and i s s ued a f or fei tur e j udgm enti n t he amountof $2, 844, 591. 17. A n or derof for fei tur e and j udgm entw as i ncl uded i n t he court ’ s s ent ence b o th in h is o ra l an n o u n c e m e n t o f G ra ss o ’s s e n ten c e a n d in th e w ritten ju d g m e n t. W e af fi r m ed the convi ct i on, butvaca t ed the s ent ence and r emanded s o J udge S c h ille r c o u ld c la ri f

yth e f a c tu a l f in d in g s u n d e rl y in g th e re s titu tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. G rasso , 3 8 1 F . 3 d 1 6 0 , 1 7 1 -72 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T her eaf t er , t he Supr eme C our tgr ant ed cert i orari , and r emanded t he ca s e t o us “for fur t hercons i der at i on i n l i ghtof U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , ” G r as s o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 945, 945 ( 2005) ( m em. ) , and w e r emanded t o t he di s t r i ctcour tfor r es ent enci ng. O n r emand t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , J udge Schi l l err ecus ed hi m s el f and the ca s e w as r eas s i gned t o J udge D al zel l . H e i m pos ed the s ame t erm of i m pr i s onm entand s upervi s ed r el eas e thatJ udge Schi l l erhad i m pos ed as w el l as a fi ne and a s peci al as s es s m ent . J udge D a lze ll also o rd e re d re stitu tio n in a n a m o u n t th a t w a s to b e d e ter m in e d f o llo w in g a tes t-T her e w as a br i ef di s cus s i on dur i ng r es ent enci ng r egar di ng t he amountof the 1 for fei tur e moneyj udgm ent , w i t h G r as s o’ s couns el agr eei ng t hatt he amountw as “[a ] ppr oxi m at el y2. 6 m i l l i on, ” s ee A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. 415, butt he maj or i t yof the hear i ng focus ed on the i s s ue of r es t i tut i on. G r as s o t hen appe al ed the amended s ent ence . F e d e ra l R u le o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 3 6 p ro v id e s: “ A f ter g iv in g a n yn o tice it 2 c o n sid e rs a p p ro p ria te, th e c o u rt m a ya t an ytim e c o rre c t a c ler ica l er ro r in a ju d g m e n t, or der , orot herpar tof the r ecor d, orcorr ectan err ori n t he r ecor d ar i s i ng fr om over s i ght o r o m is s io n .” W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the ques t i on of 3 la w th a t is ra is e d is p le n a ry. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . B e n n e tt , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 m ai l i ng of r es t i tut i on chec ks t o G r as s o’ s vi ct i m s . H ow ever , nei t herJ udge D al zel l ’ s or al announce m entof G r as s o’ s s ent ence , nort he w r i t t en j udgm entof s ent ence i ncl uded a fo rfe itu re o rde r. 1 O n Sept ember25, 2006, w e af fi r m ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on a n d s e n te n c e in a n u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n . See U nited S tates v. G rasso , 197 F. A pp’ x 200, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . O n J une 4, 2007, t he governm entfi l ed a r enew ed mot i on foran or der o f f o rfe itu re a n d fo rfe itu re m o n eyjud g m en t. Ju d g e D alze ll g ran ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on and amended the j udgm entt o i ncl ude a f i nal for fei tur e or deri n t he form of a m oneyj udgm enti n t he amountof $2, 844, 591. 17. I n doi ng s o, J udge D al zel l concl uded t hatt he fa i l ur e t o i ni t i al l yi ncl ude a f or fei tur e or derw as a “c l er i cal err or ” thatcoul d be corr ect ed thr ough t he us e of Fed. R . C r i m . P. 36. 2 T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 3 II.4

G ra ss o a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s u se o f R u le 3 6 to a m e n d h is s e n ten c e to i ncl ude a f

or fei tur e or derof $2, 844, 591. 17 w as i m pr operbeca us e the omi s s i on of a for fei tur e or deri s nota “c l er i cal err or ” thatcoul d be corr ect ed pur s uantt o R ul e 36. R ather , G r as s o ar gues t hatt he for fei tur e or deri s a s ubs t ant i ve amendm entt hati s not p e rm itt e d u n d e r R u le 3 6 , an d h e c ites : U ni t ed Stat es v. P enna , 3 1 9 F . 3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 3 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); U

nited S tates v. P ease , 3 3 1 F .3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D addi no , 5 F .3 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 4 -6 5 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t G ra ss o ’s a rg u m e n t is f o re c lo se d b yo u r d e c isio n in B e n n e tt . W e a g re e . See 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 2 8 1 -8 2 . T h e re , w e a f f irm e d th e u se o f

R u le 3 6 in ci r cumst ance s anal ogous t o t hos e bef or e us her e. T he di s t r i ctcour ti n B e n n e tt f a iled to i ncl ude a f

or fei tur e or deri n ei t hert he or al pr onouncementof the s ent ence ort he w r i t t en s e n te n c in g o rd e r. 4 2 3 F . 3 d at 27 3 . H o w ev er, th e p arti es h ad sti p u lat ed to the fo rfe itu re o rd e r, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d is s u e d a p re lim in a ry o rd e r o f f o rf e itu re . S e e id . at274. T hr ee y ear s aft ert he s ent ence w as i ni t i al l yi m pos ed, t he courtr el i ed on R ul e 36 t o amend B e n n e tt’ s s e n te n c e to in c lu d e a f o rf e itu re o rd e r. I

d. at 27 7 . In a ff

irm ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s us e of Rul e 36 t o amend t he s ent ence , w e expl ai ned thatt her e w as “no unfa i rs urpr i s e, no dis pu t e abo ut the d oll ar am ou nt of forfei ture, and no sugg est i on t hat any on e el se [w as] e n title d to k e e p th e m o n e y .” 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 2 8 1 . T h e s a m e is tru e h e re . G r as s o at t empt s t o di s countt he r el evanc e of B e n n e tt byfocus i ng on t he abs ence of a s t i pul at i on her e, and the abs ence of a pr el i m i naryor derof for fei tur e. T hos e ar e not5

m at er i al di ffe r ence s . T he s t i pul at i on and pr el i m i naryor deri n B e n n e tt m er el ypr ecl uded th e p o s s ib ility o f

s u rp ri s e o r p re

ju d ic e . C f. B e n n e tt , 423 F. 3d at282 ( m ent i oni ng t he s t i pul at i on and pr el i m i naryor deri n t he cont extof a di s cus s i on aboutnot i ce t o t he defe ndant ) . G i ven the pr i orpr ocee di ngs befor e J udge Schi l l er , G r as s o w as notpr ej udi ced b yJu d g e D a lze ll’s f

o rf e itu re o rd e r, an d h e su re lysh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n su rp rise d b yit. M or eover , on D ece m ber1, 2009, w hi l e thi s appea l w as pendi ng, t he Feder al R ul es of C ri m i nal Procedu re w ere am end ed. A s am end ed, R ule 32. 2(b)( 4)( B ) now st at es: T he courtm us ti ncl ude t he for fei tur e w hen or al l yannounci ng t he s ent ence or m ustother w is e ens ur e that the def endant know s of the

f or f ei t ur e ats ent enci ng . T he cour t m us t al s o i ncl ude t he for fei tur e orde r , di r ect l y or byr efe r ence , i n t he ju d g m e n t, butthe cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o do s o m ay be cor r ected at any t i m e under R ul e 36 . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). I n l i ghtof ourhol di ng i n B e n n e tt and the r ece ntamendm entt o t he Feder al R ul es o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in u sin g R u le 3 6 to am en d G rasso ’s sen tenc e to in clud e a fo rfe itu re o rde r. I V. F o r th e f o rg o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t.