2007 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 2-8-2007 

# U SA v . W i l li ams 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 . 05-4854

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 l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 ept e d for inclusion in 2007 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 . W i l l i am s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1647. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1647H o n . R ich a rd D . C u d a h y , U n ited S tate s S e n io r C irc u it * Ju d g e f o r th e U n ited S tate s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4854

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. SH A N N O N W I LLI A M S, 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00292) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary19, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , R E N D E L L , and C U D A H Y , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: February8, 2007) OP I NI ON

C U D A H Y , C i r cui tJ udge. S h an n o n W il li am s ap p ea ls his sen tenc e, arg u ing b o th tha t th e d istri ct co u rt2

i m pr oper l yi m pos ed a s ent ence bas ed on fa ct s found byt he courtr athert han a j ur y , and t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tvi ndi ct i vel yi ncr eas ed hi s s ent ence i n r et al i at i on foran ea r l i er s u c c e s s f u l a p p e a l. W e a f

f ir m . B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w ho ar e al r eadyaw ar e of the c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e c a s e , w e w ill s e t f

o rt h o n ly th o s e f

a c ts n e c e s s a ry to o u r d e c is io n . W i l l i a m s e n t e r e d a c o n d i t i o n a l g u i l t y p l e a t o o n e c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tfound t hat W i l l i am s com m i t t ed h i s cr i m e aft er bei ng con vict ed o f, am on g o t her t hings, a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt, th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s s p e c if ie d a b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

tw e n ty. U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 (a )(4 ). T h e c o u rt a lso ra ise d W ill iam s’s o f f e n se lev e l b yf

o u r b e c a u se it found t hathe pos s es s ed the fi r earm s i n connec t i on w i t h anotherfel onyoffe ns e, p o s s e s s io n o f

c ra c k c o c a in e w ith in te n t to d e liv e r i t. I d. § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) . T ogetherw i t h a t hr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , W i l l i ams had a t ot al offe ns e l evel of t w enty - t hr ee, a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I , and a Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of fo rt y -si x to f

ift y -sev en m o n ths in p ri so n . O n O ctob er 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , the d istri ct co u rt s ent ence d W i l l i ams t o fi ft y - fourm ont hs i n pr i s on t o run concurr ent l yw i t h a tw o- t o- four y ears ent ence he w as att hatt i m e s er vi ng i n s t at e pr i s on forpos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w ith in te n t to d e liv e r i t. W i l l i ams appe al ed. B efor e the appe al w as deci ded, t he Supr eme C our tdeci ded U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w hi ch hel d t hatt he mandat or ySent enci ng3

G ui del i nes vi ol at ed the Si xt h A m endment byi ncr eas i ng t he maxi m um s ent ence t o w hi ch a def endantcoul d be s ubj ect ed on the bas i s of fa ct s t hatw er e notchar ged i n an i ndi ct m entand admi t t ed byt he def endantorfound bya j ur yt o have be en pr oven bey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, i d. at232- 34. R el y i ng on U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162, 165- 66 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) , w e r emanded W i l l i ams’ s cas e forr es ent enci ng undert he n o w -a d v is o ry S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 417 F. 3d 373, 378 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tr e s e n t e n c e d W i l l i a ms o n Oc t o b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , a p p l y i n g t h e s a me e n h a n c e m e n ts a n d re d u c tio n s a s b e f o re . H o w e v e r, W ill iam s w a s n o lo n g e r se rv in g h is s t at e s ent ence forcr ack pos s es s i on. A l t hough he had a ppar ent l ynotcompl et ed the s ent ence ( i ndeed, he had onl ys er ved s even mont hs of a tw o- t o- foury ears ent ence ) , t he s t at e pr i s on author i t i es had nonethel es s r el eas ed hi m t o fede r al cus t odyand he w as “not now s er vi ng a s t at e cha r ge. ” ( A pp. at49- 50. ) T he r eas on fort hi s odd s t at e of a ffa i r s w as u n c le a r– in f

a c t, th e c o u rtu rg e d th a t “ if a n yb o d yc a n f

ig u re o u t w h a t th e s ta te is d o in g ,” t h a tp e r s o n s h o u l d l e tt h e c o u r tk n o w ( i d. at50) –and r emai ns uncl ear . A tanyr at e, t he cour tbel i eved thatt her e w as no w ayt o m ake a fede r al s ent ence run concurr ent l yw i t h a s t at e s ent ence t hatw as notbei ng s er ved, s o i ns t ead of s peci fy i ng t hatW i l l i ams’ s fede r al s ent ence s houl d run concurr ent l yw i t h anothers ent ence , i tr educe d W i l l i ams’ s s ent ence s e v e n m o n th s f

o r t h e tim e h e h a d a lr e a d ys e rv e d in s ta te p ri s o n p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5G 1. 3( b) ( 1) . ( A pp. at56. ) T he courtt her efor e s ent ence d W i l l i ams t o for t y - s even mont hs4

in p ri s o n . W il li am s n o w ap p ea ls his sen tenc e a g ain. H e u rge s, first , that the d istri ct co u rt i m pr oper l yi m pos ed hi s s ent ence on t he bas i s of fa ct s t hatw er e notchar ged i n an i ndi ct m entand ei t heradmi t t ed byhi m orfound bya j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and s econd, t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tvi ndi ct i vel yfai l ed t o s peci fyt hathi s s ent ence w oul d run concurr ent l yw i t h hi s s t at e s ent ence forcr ack pos s es s i on. T he fi r s tar gum ent , t hatt he f a c ts u se d to e n h a n c e h is s e n ten c e h a d to b e f o u n d b ya ju ry , m isu n d e rsta n d s p o st- B ooker fede r al s ent enci ng. T he B ookerC o u rt h e ld th a t th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t re q u ire d a n yf a c ts t hati ncr eas ed a de fenda nt ’ s pos s i bl e maxi m um s ent ence t o be both char ged i n an in d ictm e n t an d e ith e r a d m itt e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t o r p ro v e d to a ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt , and al s o t hatm andat or yappl i cat i on of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes vi ol at ed the S ix th A m e n d m e n t. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . a t2 3 2 - 2 3 4 . H o w e v e r , t h e r e m e d y B ookeror der ed w as nott hatal l fac t fi ndi ng be s ubj ectt o Si xt h A m endment pr ocedur es , butr athert hatt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes s houl d notbi nd t he di s t r i ctcour t s and henc e s houl d no l onger d e te rm in e th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e f o r S ix th A m e n d m e n t p u rp o s e s . See i d. at233 ( “I f t he G ui del i nes as curr ent l yw r i t t en coul d be r ead a s m er el yadvi s or ypr ovi s i ons t hat re c o m m e n d e d , rath e r th a n re q u ire d , the se lec tio n o f p a rticu lar se n ten c e s in re sp o n se to d if f e rin g se ts o f

f a c ts, th e ir u se w o u ld n o t im p lica te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t.”); i d. at258- 60 ( s ever i ng fr om t he Sent enci ng R eform A ct18 U . S. C . §§ 3553( b) ( 1) and 3742( e) , t he pr ovi s i ons t hatm ade the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes m andat or y ) . T he di s t r i ctcour tknew t hat5

t he g uidel i nes w ere no l on ger bi nd i ng up on i tw hen i tsent enced W i l l i am s ( s ee A pp. at 4 3 -4 4 , 4 7 ), an d c o n se q u e n tlyth e ju d icia l f a c tf in d in g d id n o t v io late th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. T h is le a v e s W ill iam s’s se c o n d a rg u m e n t, th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to s peci fyt hathi s s ent ence w as t o run concurr ent l yw i t h anyot hers ent ence w as m ade vi ndi ct i vel y , i n r et al i at i on forhi s s ucce s s ful appea l of hi s pr evi ous s ent ence . T he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e forbi ds cour t s t o del i ber at el ypuni s h a s ucce s s ful appea l byi m pos i ng a h a rs h e r s e n te n c e a f

te r r e m a n d . A la b a m a v . Sm ith , 4 9 0 U .S . 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 (1 9 8 9 ), c iti n gN o rth C ar ol i na v. P ear ce , 3 9 5 U .S . 7 1 1 , 7 2 5 (1 9 6 9 ). T h e k e yis s u e is th e c o u rt ’s m o tiv e . U n itedS ta tes v . Esp o sito , 9 6 8 F .2 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). It is p re su m e d th a t a r et al i at or ym ot i ve under l i es an i ncr eas ed s ent ence w her e ther e i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he i ncr eas ed s ent ence w as vi ndi ct i vel yi m pos ed; t he pr es um pt i on i s r ebut t ed i f a c o u rt o f f e rs o b je c tiv e re a s o n s f

o r t h e s e n te n c e . P e a r c e , 3 9 5 U .S . at 7 2 6 ; Esp o sito , 968 F. 2d at305. I n ot hers i tuat i ons , no pr es um pt i on appl i es and the def endantm us tpr es ent a f f ir m a tiv e e v id e n c e th a t h e r s e n te n c e w a s im p o s e d in re ta lia tio n f o r a s u c c e s s f

u l a p p e a l. Sm ith , 4 9 0 U .S . at 7 9 9 -8 0 0 ; Esp o sito , 9 6 8 F .2 d a t 3 0 5 . W i l l i ams has notar gued w hyw e s houl d pr es um e vi ndi ct i venes s i n t he pr es ent cas e, buteven i f w e w er e t o do s o t he di s t r i ctcour tr ebut t ed anypr es um pt i on by expl ai ni ng t hatal t hough i tdi d notw antt o i m pos e a c ons ecut i ve s ent ence i tbel i eved that W il li am s’s release fro m stat e c u stod yp rec lud ed a c o n cu rren t sen tenc e. (A p p . at 49 -52 . )Iti s unclea r whether the district c ourt could have imposed a 1 c o n c ur r e nts e nt e n c e . F e d e r a ls t atut e s p e r m i tc o urt s t o s p e c i f

y a concur rent or consec utive sentenc e “[i]f mul tiple terms of imprisonment areimposed on a def

endant at the same time, or if a term of imprisonment is i mp o s edon a def endant who is alrea dy

subject to an un dis c ha rg e d term of imp ri so nment. ” 18 U. S.C. § 3 58 4( a). Th e Circ uit s are split on whether this statute prevents the imposit ion of a s en t en ce consecutive to a state sente nce wh erethe state sente nce ha s yet to be imposed. Se eUn ited S

tates v . A nd

rews , 3 30 F .3 d 1 30 5, 13 06 -0 7 ( 11 th Cir. 2003) (collec ting c ases) . At any rate , Wil liams did no t ra i se the permissibility

of a c oncurrent sentenc e either below or in this court. Willi ams may fe ar t

hat th e sta tepriso n a

uth oriti e s r e le a se d h im 2 in o rd e r t o p re vent f

e de ral priso n a

uth oriti e s f

ro m c re ditinghim

fo r time se rv e d o n h is s tatese ntenc e . I f t hat is ha pp e nin g , th e remay

ultimate ly be little the federal g overnme nt c an do about it, give n the criminal law principle of dual sovere ignty . Cf. T aylor v. Sawye r , 284 F.3d 1143, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002). Bu tWil liams can still seek to havestate prison authorities credit his f

ederal time served ag ainst his state sentence , and if the st ate prison authorities reacquire custody of W illiams before hehas completed his fe deral sentenceWil liams could arguably ask the fe deral prison authorities to make his sentenc e ef fec tively concur rent by designatingth e re levant state prison as the offic ial federal de tention fac ility . See id. at 1148-49, citing Bureau of Prisons P olicy

Statement § 5160.04; Romandine v . United States , 206 F.3d 73 1 , 738 (7th Cir. 2000), citing

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). 6 E ven i f t he co urt ’s un derst and i ng of the con dit i on s und er w hich i tcou l d im po se concurr ents ent ence s w as l egal l yerr oneous ( a ques t i on w hi ch w e do notdeci de) , t he 1 r eas ons i toffe r ed fori t s choi ce of s ent ence w er e obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e and f r ee of vi ndi ct i ve mot i ve. I ndeed, s i nce the s t at e has s ur r ender ed cus t odyof W i l l i ams, t he cons ecut i ve s ent ence has noty eteven i nj ur ed W i l l i ams, and maytur n outt o be com plet el yharm l ess. 2 T h e s e n te n c e is a f

f ir m e d .