2008 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 5-12-2008 

# U SA v . B o okm an 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 . 07-1733

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_2008

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 2008 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 . Boo km an" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1240. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1240NOT 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- 1733

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. T YHE E M BO OKMAN, 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. : 06- cr - 00149 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)

M ay6, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C h ie

f J u d g e , B A R R Y , a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ay12, 2008 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge .2

A j ur yconvi ct ed Ty heem B ookm an of pos s es s i ng a fi r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d B o o k m a n to 7 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. B ookm an r ai s es t w o t r i al err or s and one s ent enci ng err oron appea l . Forthe r eas ons t hat f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I. Be c a u s e we wr i t e e x c l u s i v e l yf o rth e p a r t i e s , wh o a r e f a mi l i a rwi t h th e c a s e , we r ecountonl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o ourdeci s i on. O n t he eve ni ng of N ovember25, 2005, tw o pol i ce of fi cer s on s uppl ement al patr ol o f a h ig h -c rim e a re a in C a m d e n , N e w Je rse y , o b se rv e d B o o k m a n re a c h in g f o r h is w ai s tband. A ft erone of the off i cer s s aw w hatappea r ed t o be the but tof a ha ndgun, B ookm an w as pur s ued br i efl yand arr es t ed. B ookm an l at erw as char ged w i t h i l l egal pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on. B as ed on the part i es ’ pr etr i al s t i pul at i ons , the s ol e ques t i on forthe j uryw as w hetherB ookm an pos s es s ed the fi r earm . Pr i ort o tr i al , B ookm an moved t o excl ude any t es t i m onyr efe r r i ng t o t he ar ea i n w hi ch he w as arr es t ed as a hi gh- cr i m e ar ea unde rR ul es 402 and 403 of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on. I n hi s s um m at i on att r i al , B ookm an’ s couns el ar gued thatthe off i cer s ’ t es t i m ony w a s f a lse . In re b u ttal, th e G o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d e d b ytellin g th e ju ro rs th a t th e ysh o u ld acqui tB ookm an i f theybel i eved the G overnm ent ’ s w i t nes s es had l i ed. B ookm an3

o b je c te d , a rg u in g th a t th is s ta te m e n t m is s ta te d th e is s u e th e ju ry w a s re q u ir e d to d e c id e . T he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed the obj ect i on, and the j uryconvi ct ed B ookm an. T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor tcal cul at ed a s ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of 51 t o 6 3 m on t hs, bu tt he D i stri ctC ou rtapp l i ed a tw o-l evel enhan cem ent because B o o k m a n lied u n d e r o a th d u rin g a p re trial s u p p re ss io n h e a rin g , the re b yin c re a sin g h is G ui del i nes r ange t o 63 t o 78 m ont hs . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B ookm an t o 70 mo n t h s a f

t e rn o t i n g h i s c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y , l a c k o f c r e d i b i l i t y , l a c k o f

r e s p e c tf

o rth e l a w, v i o l a t i o n s o f

c o n d i t i o n s o f

p r e t r i a l r e l e a s e , a n d th e p o t e n t i a l th a th e mi g h to b t a i n h i s GED w hi l e i n pr i s on. II. W e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on overB ookm an’ s cl ai m s of tr i al err orunder28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ct C o u rtu n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). A. B o o k m a n f

irst a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it d e n ied h is m o tio n to excl ude t es t i m onyr efe r r i ng t o t he l ocat i on w her e he w as arr es t ed as a hi gh- cr i m e ar ea beca us e thatt es t i m onyw as undul ypr ej udi ci al and i r r el evantunderR ul es 402 and 403 of the F ed era l R u les o f E v iden ce . W e re v iew the e v iden ti aryruli n g s o f th e D istri ct C o u rt f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).4

C ou rt s m ustbalance t he “g enu i ne n eed f or the ch al l eng ed ev i den ce” w i t h the “r i sk t hatt he [e vi dence ] w i l l i nfl uence t he j uryt o convi cton i m pr opergr ounds . ” U ni t ed Stat es v . Sriy u th , 98 F. 3d 739, 747- 48 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T he ques t i on of r el evanc yturns on how t he evi dence “fi t s i nt o a cha i n of l ogi cal i nfer ence s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sam

ps on , 980 F. 2d 8 8 3 , 8 8 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). A s an i nt egr al par tof hi s defe ns e, B ookm an cha l l enged the cr edi bi l i t yof the offi cerw ho i ni t i al l yobs erved the handgun i n hi s w ai s tband. B yr ai s i ng thi s chal l enge, B ookm an opene d t he doorfort es t i m onyexpl ai ni ng the exa ctci r cumst ance s underw hi ch t he off i cerm ade hi s obs ervat i on. T he fa ctthatthe off i cerw as on s uppl ement al patr ol i n a hi gh- cr i m e ar ea i s r el evantfort hi s r eas on. T hus , acc or di ng the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng underR ul e 403 “pa r t i cul ardefe r ence , ” I n r e Paol i R . R . Y

ar d P C B Li t ig. , 113 F. 3d 444, 453 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on. B. B o o k m a n n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in o v e rru lin g h is o b jec tio n to t he fol l ow i ng s t at ementm ade dur i ng t he G overnm ent ’ s r ebut t al s um m at i on: Y o u n e e d to e v a lu a te e a c h a n d e v e ryo n e o f th o se w itn e ss e s a n d sa yd id t heycome i n and di d t heyt el l m e the truth. A nd i f y ou det erm i ne col l ect i vel yt hatt hos e off i cer s t ook t hats t and and l i ed t o y ou, then y ou need to a c q u it. Y o u n e e d to f in d th e d e f

e n d a n t n o t g u iltyb e c a u se y o u sh o u ld e x p e c t m o re f

ro m y o u r G o v e rn m e n t. B o o k m a n c laim s th a t th is s tate m e n t v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts b e c a u se it uncons t i tut i onal l yl ow er ed the bur den of pr oof. W e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ngs on5

o b je c tio n s to c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 254 F . 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W her e the G overnm entort he tr i al cour tpr ovi des an i nadequa t e def i ni t i on of re a s o n a b le d o u b t, r e v e rs a l is a p p ro p ri a te . Sul l i van v. Louis i ana , 5 0 8 U .S . 2 7 5 (1 9 9 3 ). T h at i s n o t w h at oc cu rred in this ca se, ho w ev er. D u ri n g h is sum m ati o n , B o o k m an ’s couns el ar gued thatt he G overnm ent ’ s w i t nes s es w er e l es s than ca ndi d, and the G overnm entr es ponded t o t hatar gum entbyagr eei ng thati f the j urybel i eved thatthe G overnm ent ’ s w i t nes s es w er e l y i ng, the j urys houl d acqui tB ookm an. I n fac t , the offi cer s ’ cr edi bi l i t yw as a ce nt r al i s s ue thr oughoutthe tr i al . T he G overnm ent ’ s s t at ement a d d re s s e d th is is s u e ; it d id n o t, a s B o o k m a n a rg u e s , s p e a k to th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f. T her efor e, w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on bythe D i s t r i ctC our ti n t hi s r egar d. C. Fi nal l y , B ookm an ar gues t hatw e s houl d vaca t e hi s s ent ence beca us e the D i s t r i ct C our terr ed w hen i tr el i ed on the r ehabi l i t at i ve pot ent i al of pr i s on i n s ett i ng the l ength of B o o k m a n ’s te rm o f

im p riso n m e n t in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (a ). B e c a u se th is o b je c tio n w a s n o t r a is e d b e lo w , w e re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

at s on , 482 F . 3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n U n itedS ta tes v . M

a n ze lla , w e obs erved that18 U . S. C . § 3582( a) pr ecl udes cour t s fr om carr y i ng outt he goal of r ehabi l i t at i on “byi m pr i s onm ent . ” 475 F. 3d 152, 158 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . H er e, B ookm an r el i es on t he6

D istric t C o u rt’s m e n tio n a t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g th a t h e m ig h t re c e iv e h is G E D w h ile in pr i s on. W hen vi ew ed i n cont ext , how ever , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ementdoes not w arr antr ever s al . T he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed al l of the r el evant18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fact ors se ria tim . T he C our tm ent i oned B ookm an’ s pot ent i al t o obt ai n hi s G E D i n pas s i ng w h en co n side ri n g § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2)(D ). B ec au se th e C o u rttoo k sp ec ial n o ti ce o f B o o k m an ’s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , l ack of cr edi bi l i t y , l ack of

r es pectforthe l aw , and vi ol at i on of condi t i ons of pr etr i al r el eas e, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tbas ed the l ength of B o o k m a n ’s s e n te n c e e x c lu s iv e ly o r p ri m a ri ly f o r h is re h a b ilita tio n . C

f. M a n ze lla , 475 F . 3 d at 16 1 (co n clud ing that the d istri ct co u rt“se t th e len g th o f M an ze ll a’s p ri so n term s ol el y forr ehabi l i t at i ve r eas ons ”) ( emphasi s added) . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no err or , and a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt.

III . W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d a l l o f B o o k m a n ’ s a r g u m e n t s a n d f i n d n o e r r o r . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t an d se n ten c e o f th e D istric t C o u rt.