Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/870/880/312207/
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 15:26:08
Document Index: 165695540

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 3575', '§ 924', '§ 3575', '§ 924', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 109', '§ 3575', '§ 109', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 3575', '§ 924', '§ 922', 'art:\n18', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 3575', '§ 849', '§ 922', '§ 924']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Edwin A. Towne, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Second Circuit › 1989 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Edwin A. Towne, Jr., Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Appellee, v. Edwin A. Towne, Jr., Defendant-appellant, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989)
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989)
Argued Sept. 19, 1988. Decided March 22, 1989
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, Albert W. Coffrin, Chief Judge, a jury having found appellant Edwin Towne guilty of receiving and possessing various firearms after a prior felony conviction in violation of federal laws. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the enhancement of appellant's sentences on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5. However, we believe that the district judge improperly enhanced appellant's sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1) as to Counts 6 and 8; therefore, we vacate the judgment of sentence on those two counts and remand for resentencing.
On December 30, 1986, appellant Edwin A. Towne, Jr., was indicted in the District of Vermont on two counts of receiving and possessing a firearm after a prior felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1202(a) (1); three counts of receiving and possessing a firearm and ammunition after a prior felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) (1); and three counts of receiving and possessing a firearm and ammunition after a prior felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1). After a three-day jury trial in June of 1987, the defendant was found guilty on all counts except Count 7. Thereafter, Towne was sentenced to a total of 70 years' imprisonment.
In April 1987, prior to Towne's trial in federal district court, the government filed a notice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3575 to have him designated as a "dangerous special offender." The notice was filed with United States District Judge Franklin Billings, who ordered the notice sealed. On September 30, 1987, after Towne had been tried and convicted by a jury before Chief Judge Coffrin, and a motion for a new trial had been denied, the Section 3575 notice was disclosed to the trial judge. On October 20, 1987, Judge Coffrin held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3575(b).
On December 24, 1987, Judge Coffrin issued an Opinion and Order designating Towne as a dangerous special offender with respect to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and ruling that Towne's sentences on all of those counts would be enhanced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3575(b). However, Judge Coffrin reserved ruling on the applicability of the enhancement provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1) to Counts 6 and 8. On March 7, 1988, Judge Coffrin issued a third Opinion and Order, ruling that Towne was subject to enhanced sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1) for his convictions on Counts 6 and 8 of the indictment. He also vacated the defendant's conviction on Count 2 as having merged with Count 8. That decision is published at 680 F. Supp. 687 (D. Vt. 1988).
On March 28, 1988, Towne was sentenced on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 to a term of imprisonment totalling seventy years. More particularly, he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 15 years each on Counts 3, 4, 6, and 8, and five years each on Counts 1 and 5. Since there is no possibility of parole by the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1), Towne would serve thirty years in prison on Counts 6 and 8. This appeal was timely filed.
Appellant raises seven principal issues on appeal; four relate to events that occurred before and during his trial, and three relate to the sentences he received. Towne argues that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by Sergeant Blais on October 21, 1986, pursuant to an allegedly invalid warrant; (2) failing to excuse for cause a juror who expressed doubt during voir dire that she could be impartial; (3) admitting evidence of Towne's possession of one of the subject firearms on dates other than the date specified in the indictment; (4) restricting the scope of defense counsel's cross-examination of a government witness at trial when counsel attempted to establish that the witness was testifying against Towne in order to curry favor with government prosecutors; (5) enhancing Towne's sentence on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 under the "dangerous special offender" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3575, and imposing an aggregate sentence of forty years on those four counts, when that statute had expired just prior to Towne's sentencing and provided for a maximum term of twenty-five years; (6) enhancing Towne's sentence on Counts 6 and 8 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which allows for sentence enhancement only after a defendant has been convicted of three prior violent felonies; and (7) in sentencing Towne to a total of 70 years' imprisonment without parole eligibility for thirty of those years in violation of the eighth amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. We consider these claims seriatim.
Appellant argues that the firearm, personal property, and ensuing statements obtained by the police in connection with the October 21, 1986 arrest should have been suppressed because Sergeant Blais knew or should have known that the New Hampshire fugitive warrant upon which his arrest was based was invalid. According to appellant, because the officer had been told before arresting Towne that the New Hampshire charges had been "resolved," Blais lacked probable cause to arrest him, and therefore the arrest violated Towne's fourth amendment rights. Alternatively, appellant argues that the arrest violated his due process rights under Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S. Ct. 495, 499, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971), because it constituted a "violation" of the prior plea agreement between himself and Vermont authorities concerning the New Hampshire charges.
We agree and we conclude that Sergeant Blais had probable cause to arrest Towne, and, hence, Towne was not deprived of his fourth amendment rights. See Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1310-11, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949); see also United States v. Fox, 788 F.2d 905, 907 (2d Cir. 1986).
The fact that the underlying New Hampshire warrant was improperly kept in the "active" files of the NCIC in violation of the three-way plea agreement between New Hampshire, Vermont, and the defendant, does not require this Court to suppress the seized evidence. As Judge Coffrin correctly explained, the only issue in this case is whether Sergeant Blais had probable cause to believe that the defendant was wanted on outstanding criminal charges in New Hampshire. If such probable cause existed, then Towne was afforded all the process he was due. See Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 39-40, 99 S. Ct. 2627, 2633-34, 61 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1979) (where officer had probable cause to arrest, fact that ordinance creating the offense was later held unconstitutional did not affect the legality of the arrest). Finally, there are no underlying policy considerations at work here which might warrant suppression of the evidence that was seized. Applying the exclusionary rule in this case would not further the purpose of the rule, which is to deter police misconduct, because it was objectively reasonable for Sergeant Blais to rely on the New Hampshire warrant in arresting the defendant. As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 918-19, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3418-19, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule "cannot be expected, and should not be applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity."
Appellant's arguments are without merit for several reasons. As a threshold matter, we are not persuaded that the district judge clearly abused his discretion in refusing to excuse this potential juror. See United States v. Ploof, 464 F.2d 116, 118 n. 4 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 952, 93 S. Ct. 298, 34 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1972) ("There are few aspects of a jury trial where we would be less inclined to disturb a trial judge's exercise of discretion, absent clear abuse, than in ruling on challenges for cause in the empanelling of a jury."). More important, however, appellant cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the trial judge's refusal to excuse this venireperson for cause, since Ms. Cox was never a member of the jury that convicted Towne. Although appellant felt compelled to use his last peremptory challenge to remove this allegedly biased juror, peremptory challenges are neither mandated by the Constitution nor of constitutional dimension as such. Thus, so long as the jury which was ultimately selected was fair and impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean that the sixth amendment was violated. Ross v. Oklahoma, --- U.S. ----, 108 S. Ct. 2273, 2274-75, 101 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1988). Since appellant has in no way established the partiality of the jury that ultimately convicted him, he may not successfully claim deprivation of his sixth amendment or due process rights. See United States v. Brown, 644 F.2d 101, 104 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 881, 102 S. Ct. 369, 70 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1981).
The basic flaw in appellant's argument is that the challenged evidence was not "other crimes" evidence within the meaning of Rule 404(b). Rather, the evidence was admitted to show that it was Towne and not someone else who exercised continuous dominion and control over the pistol, in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1202 (repealed 1986). The continuous possession of the same gun does not amount to a series of crimes, but rather constitutes a single offense. See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861, 865, 105 S. Ct. 1668, 1671, 1673, 84 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1985) (receipt and continuous possession of a firearm is a single offense). Finally, even assuming arguendo that Towne's possession of the pistol on other days did constitute other criminal activity, evidence of uncharged criminal activity is not considered "other crimes" evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) if it "arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, if it [is] inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime [on] trial." United States v. Weeks, 716 F.2d 830, 832 (11th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted); see United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 64 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S. Ct. 133, 78 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1983). Thus, the district court did not err by refusing to give the requested limiting instruction with respect to evidence of Towne's possession of the pistol on days other than the date charged in the indictment.
Appellant's contentions are not without some merit, and we believe that the district judge should have allowed defense counsel to cross-examine North regarding his motives for testifying against Towne. The judge's decision not to allow counsel's examination because there was no official "deal" between federal prosecutors and North was erroneous. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-79, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1435-36, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1986); cf. United States v. Dorfman, 470 F.2d 246, 248 (2d Cir. 1972) (defense can be permitted to elicit testimony that witness "hoped" for government leniency on pending charge), cert. dismissed, 411 U.S. 923, 93 S. Ct. 1561, 36 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1973). Nevertheless, once it is determined that a court impermissibly restricted the scope of cross-examination, "the correct inquiry [then becomes] whether, assuming the damaging potential of cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S. Ct. at 1438. It is clear to us from the considerable evidence in this case against Towne that the restriction of defense counsel's examination of North was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence with respect to each count was overwhelming, the testimony of Nelson North was both cumulative and corroborated, and North was both extensively and effectively cross-examined on all other relevant points. See id. at 684, 106 S. Ct. at 1438. Moreover, on appeal, Towne fails to demonstrate how the error was prejudicial or harmful to his defense. We conclude that while the district judge should have permitted broader cross-examination of North, any infringement of appellant's sixth amendment right to confront this witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Towne raises three issues on appeal with respect to his sentencing by the district court: the propriety of enhancing his sentence on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 under the Dangerous Special Offender ("DSO") Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3575; the propriety of enhancing his sentence on Counts 6 and 8 under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1); and the constitutionality under the eighth amendment of the total sentence imposed. We find appellant's third claim to be without merit, insofar as we find no violation of the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We will consider the remaining two claims in turn.
A. Sentence Enhancement Under 18 U.S.C. § 3575
Towne challenges the enhancement of his sentence on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3575 on three grounds: (1) that the district court lacked the authority to enhance his sentence because Sec. 3575 was repealed two months before he was adjudged a "dangerous special offender" and five months before he was sentenced; (2) that the district court's characterization of defendant as "dangerous" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3575(f) lacked any factual basis; and (3) that the total sentence of forty years on these four counts exceeded the statutory maximum, because 18 U.S.C. § 3575 only authorizes a maximum aggregate term of twenty-five years for all counts of conviction.
We find appellant's first and second points to be without merit. While it is true that 18 U.S.C. § 3575 was repealed prior to Towne's sentencing by the district judge,1 the statute was in effect at the time that the underlying offenses were committed and at the time Towne was convicted. Under 1 U.S.C. § 109, which is the general federal saving statute, penalties accruing while a statute is in force may be enforced after expiration of that statute, unless the statute expressly provides otherwise. See Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653, 661, 94 S. Ct. 2532, 2537, 41 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1974). Hence, the application of 18 U.S.C. § 3575's sentence enhancement provisions was saved by operation of 1 U.S.C. § 109. As for appellant's second claim, we note only that the district court's classification of Towne as "dangerous" under 18 U.S.C. § 3575(f) was amply supported by the record. Towne's long history of violent criminal behavior more than justified the district court's finding that Towne was a dangerous special offender within the meaning of Sec. 3575.
Appellant's third claim presents a question which has not been explicitly resolved heretofore. Appellant argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3575 only permits a court to sentence a defendant to a total of twenty-five years on all counts of conviction, and that his forty-year sentence on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 therefore exceeds the statutory maximum provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3575. In so arguing, appellant relies on this Court's decision in United States v. DiFrancesco, 604 F.2d 769, 780 n. 13 (2d Cir. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 449 U.S. 117, 101 S. Ct. 426, 66 L. Ed. 2d 328 (1980), wherein we reserved judgment on the question "whether Sec. 3575 authorizes the imposition of consecutive sentences [on multiple counts] totaling more than twenty-five years." In this case, appellant's sentences on each of the four counts, taken separately, were well within the statutory maximum of twenty-five years,2 but because the district judge imposed them as consecutive terms, the aggregate term of imprisonment was forty years.
In the wake of any prior reservations, we now hold that with respect to dangerous special offenders who have been convicted of multiple felonies prior to November 1, 1987, Sec. 3575 does not preclude the imposition of consecutive sentences which, in the aggregate, exceed twenty-five years, so long as each individual sentence does not exceed twenty-five years. Eighteen U.S.C. § 3575 plainly states that " [w]henever an attorney charged with the prosecution of a defendant ... for an alleged felony ... has reason to believe that the defendant is a dangerous special offender," he shall file appropriate notice with the court of his intention to seek an enhanced sentence in the event of conviction. 18 U.S.C. § 3575(a) (emphasis added). Section 3575 further provides that " [i]f it appears ... that the defendant is a dangerous special offender, the court shall sentence the defendant to imprisonment for an appropriate term not to exceed twenty-five years and not disproportionate in severity to the maximum term otherwise authorized by law for such felony." 18 U.S.C. § 3575(b) (emphasis added). We read the words "such felony" to mean that the statutory limit of twenty-five years only applies to individual felonies, and we conclude that the statute does not limit the aggregate sentence that a district judge may impose. See United States v. Scott, 859 F.2d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that prosecutor was entitled to seek separate sentence enhancements under 18 U.S.C. § 3575 "for each one of the felonies alleged in the indictment") (emphasis added); see also United States v. Calabrese, 755 F.2d 302, 306 (2d Cir. 1985) (court impliedly recognized that 25-year limitation of Sec. 3575 applies on a per count basis, rather than to the aggregate sentence). Since the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, there is no need to examine the underlying legislative history. See Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 481 U.S. 454, 461, 107 S. Ct. 1855, 1860, 95 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1987) ("Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, ' [w]hen we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.' ") (quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430, 101 S. Ct. 698, 701, 66 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1981)).3 Accordingly, we affirm Towne's sentence as to Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5.
B. Sentence Enhancement Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1)
Towne also was convicted on Counts 6 and 8 of the indictment, both of which charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1). A later section of title 18 provides in relevant part:
18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1) (emphasis added). In 1976, Towne was indicted and convicted in New Hampshire on two felony counts--one for aggravated felonious sexual assault and one for kidnapping. Both felonies were committed in connection with an extended attack upon a single victim in July of 1976. Thereafter, in 1983, as discussed above, the defendant pleaded guilty in Vermont state court to two new felony counts--again, one for sexual assault and one for kidnapping. And, again, both felonies were committed in connection with a prolonged attack upon a single female victim. The district judge herein determined that Towne's convictions for kidnapping and sexual assault in each of these two cases qualified as four separate felony "convictions" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1), although in each case the two felonies were committed during a single criminal episode which involved "a continuous course of offense behavior directed against a single victim." 680 F. Supp. at 691. Since the district judge considered each of the felony convictions in each of the criminal episodes to be independent of the others, he held that the four prior convictions triggered the enhanced penalty provision of Sec. 924(e) (1).
According to appellant, the district judge erred when he enhanced Towne's sentence under Sec. 924(e) (1) on the basis of these four prior convictions. Towne argues that in enacting Sec. 924(e) (1), Congress only sought to enhance the sentence of convicted persons who had been before the courts on three prior, separate occasions, and who had been convicted of violent felonies on each of those occasions. According to appellant, Congress did not intend Sec. 924(e) (1)'s enhanced penalty provisions to apply to the sentences of convicted defendants who had been convicted previously of committing multiple felonies during the course of fewer than three single criminal "episodes." Hence, according to appellant, the district judge should not have enhanced his sentence because his four prior felony convictions arose out of only two episodes of criminal conduct, and not out of three separate episodes as is required under the statute.
The question presented by appellant is whether the statutory reference to "three previous convictions" in Sec. 924(e) (1) should be construed literally to mean any three felony convictions, regardless of whether the three predicate felonies were committed simultaneously during a single spasm of criminal activity; or whether it should be construed as a reference to the number of prior occasions on which a defendant has engaged in, and been convicted of, violent criminal conduct. Although the question presented is one of first impression in this Circuit, it has been fairly well-established in other circuits that Sec. 924(e) (1)'s reference to "convictions" pertains to single "episodes" of felonious criminal activity that are distinct in time, rather than literal convictions. See United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 497 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 147, 102 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1988); United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 264, 102 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1988); United States v. Rush, 840 F.2d 580, 581 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Wicks, 833 F.2d 192, 194 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 87, 102 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1988); United States v. Petty, 828 F.2d 2, 3 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S. Ct. 2827, 100 L. Ed. 2d 928 (1988); United States v. Greene, 810 F.2d 999, 1000 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Brief of United States Solicitor General filed in Opposition to Defendant's Petition for Certiorari at 5, in United States v. Wicks, No. 87-6807 (U.S.1988) (stating that every federal court of appeals that has considered the issue has adopted the multiple episodes approach, that there is no conflict among the circuit courts of appeals with respect to this issue, and that these courts have "simply required that the criminal episodes be distinct in time"). Therefore, we hold that the district court erred in enhancing Towne's sentence on the basis of the four felony convictions which arose out of his two prior attacks on women.
Although the plain language of Sec. 924 arguably supports the district court's literal construction of the statute, it is apparent from the statute's legislative history that literal adherence to the terms of Sec. 924(e) (1) would thwart the clear legislative goals underlying the subject Armed Career Criminal Act. In support of this conclusion, we rely not only on expressions of legislative intent in the Congress prior to Sec. 924's enactment, but also on recent indications that the Supreme Court and the United States Solicitor General have come to similar conclusions about the proper interpretation of Sec. 924(e) (1).
Two years ago, this issue was raised when a petition for certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court seeking review of the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Petty, 798 F.2d 1157 (8th Cir. 1986). In Petty, which involved the predecessor statute to Sec. 924(e) (1),4 the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had initially interpreted the statute as the U.S. Attorney's office now urges us to do and the court took into account the actual number of prior criminal convictions in determining whether to enhance the defendant's sentence. 798 F.2d at 1160. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and the Solicitor General filed a brief that took the opposite view. The Solicitor General's brief canvassed the statute's legislative history and attempted to demonstrate that Congress had intended its sentencing enhancement provision to apply only to recidivists and repeat offenders, and not to persons who commit several crimes at one time. The Supreme Court thereafter vacated the lower court judgment and remanded the matter to the Eighth Circuit "for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief." Petty v. United States, 481 U.S. 1034, 1034, 107 S. Ct. 1968, 95 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1987).
Upon remand, the Court of Appeals adopted the Solicitor General's view that the statute was in fact "intended to reach multiple criminal episodes that were distinct in time" rather than multiple felony convictions arising out of a single criminal episode. Petty, 828 F.2d at 3; see also United States v. Montgomery, 819 F.2d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 1987) (in light of Solicitor General's Petty brief, government conceded that convictions for simultaneous robbery of two victims constitutes single conviction for purposes of Sec. 1202(a) enhancement; remanded for resentencing in light of government's changed position). Since then, the Eighth Circuit has reaffirmed this position, reiterating in a recent opinion that the "criminal episodes underlying the [defendant's prior] convictions ... must be distinct to trigger the provisions of the [statute]." Rush, 840 F.2d at 581.
Apart from the Supreme Court's apparent acceptance of the Solicitor General's view, as we stated earlier, we are persuaded to adopt the "multiple criminal episodes" approach based upon the statute's legislative history. See also Brief of Solicitor General at 4-10, Petty v. United States, 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S. Ct. 1968, 95 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1987) (canvassing the legislative history).5 We believe that the Armed Career Criminal Act indeed was aimed at career criminals, rather than "those who merely commit three punishable acts." Wicks, 833 F.2d at 195 (Pregerson, J., dissenting); see also Armed Career Criminal Act, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 47-66 (1984) (testimony of Assistant Attorney General Stephen S. Trott) ("Trott Testimony"); Armed Career Criminal Act of 1983, Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 11, 15, 18-19 (1983) (testimony of Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Knapp). As Judge Pregerson noted in Wicks, the title of the Act itself indicates that it was aimed at punishing "career" criminals, "individuals who are resistant to society's efforts at rehabilitation." Wicks, 833 F.2d at 195. This view was confirmed by Assistant Attorney General Stephen S. Trott, who stated at a 1984 Congressional hearing concerning whether to require two rather than three convictions for an Armed Career Criminal Act violation:
It seems quite clear that this section of the Act was intended to target recidivists, i.e., those who have engaged in violent criminal activity on at least three separate occasions, and not individuals who happen to acquire three convictions as a result of a single criminal episode (or, as here, two such criminal events). Finally, apart from the purposes of the Act, we also agree with the Solicitor General that Congress did not intend Sec. 924's enhancement provisions to be any broader than other, similar federal enhanced penalty provisions which do require courts to focus on the number of prior criminal episodes in which a defendant was involved. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3575(e) (1); 21 U.S.C. § 849(e) (1) (repealed 1987). Applying this interpretation of Sec. 924(e) (1), we therefore conclude that since Towne's four convictions arose out of two, not three, distinct criminal episodes, they do not trigger the enhancement provisions of Sec. 924(e) (1).
For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to hold that the district court improperly enhanced the defendant's sentences on Counts 6 and 8 pursuant to Sec. 924(e) (1). Accordingly, we vacate the sentences imposed on these counts and remand to the district court for resentencing. The underlying judgments of conviction, however, are affirmed, as are the sentences on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5. We have considered all of the other arguments presented, and find them to be without merit.
Section 3575 has been repealed with respect to crimes committed after November 1, 1987. See Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, Secs. 212(a) (2), 219(a), 235(a) (1), 98 Stat. 1987, 2027, 2031 (1984), amended by Sentencing Reform Amendments Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-217, Sec. 4, 99 Stat. 1728 (1985)
In the Petty case, the defendant was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1202(a). Congress repealed Sec. 1202(a) in 1986, but it made the enhanced penalty clause applicable to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and recodified it as 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1). See Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-308, Secs. 102, 104, 100 Stat. 452, 458-59 (1986). The statutory language at issue in this case--i.e., the reference to "three previous convictions"--was unchanged. When the section was recodified, Congress broadened the applicability of the enhanced penalty section by expanding it to cover persons convicted of three violent felonies. Section 1202(a) had previously referred only to "a person ... who has three prior convictions ... for robbery or burglary."